
Class. 
Book.. 



— 



Goipghtfl?- 



CQffiRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



THE 

COMPLETE 



CONSPIRACY 



TRIAL BOOK 



1908 



2£L 



THE 

Complete Conspiracy 
Trial Book 



BEING AN 



Historical, Philosophical, Ethical 



AND 



Judicial Analysis 



OF 



Eleven Baptist Lawsuits in Texas 



BY 

Rev. S. A. Hayden, D.D., LL.D. 



The Texas Baptist Publishing House 

Dallas, Texas, 

1907 

Paper, $1.00. Cloth, $1.50. 




^ 






| LIBfiARY of CONGRESS 

Two Copies Received 

FEB 1 i^OS 

JCU88A XXo.«u,l 
COPY 3. 



Copyright 1907, 

By 
S. A. HAYDEN. 



PUBLISHER'S NOTICE. 

This book has cost several years' labor. It perhaps is not 
as complete as the title page indicates, but it has tried to be. 
It is believed that its publication will make a recurrence of 
the things recited extremely improbable, if not impossible. 
The actual cost of the paper edition is $1.00 and of the cloth 
edition $1.50. It is published for the good it may do. 



INTRODUCTION. 

You doubt, as I once doubted, Paul's inspired declaration- 
"The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." I read it 
through a palisade of interrogation points. Money is so useful 
for good; it feeds the poor; it clothes the naked; it heals the 
sick; it carries the gospel of light and life and salvation to those 
who sit in darkness and amid the shadows of death. The equa- 
tion of commercial life, the vehicle of Christian charity — why 
is it a root of all kinds of evil? Because it is the means of indul- 
gence for all passions. It buys the evanescent pleasure, then 
mantles the disgrace of it. It lays the price of sin on the altar 
of passion -and seeks to shrive the soul by laying conscience 
money on the altar of prayer. It plies between the house of 
sin and the house of God, paying tribute lavishly at both places, 
and then it relates before religious assemblies, for the encour- 
agement of the derelict, how God blesses their gifts by larger 
dividends in money. Giving God His own is to them an invest- 
ment to 1 be paid back to them in kind. It is a trust between 
them and God, cornering the rest of the world. 

The love of money was the root of all this Conspiracy. The 
mission bac was to the covetous an intoxicating still. Under the 
frenzy they were tempted to undertake human vivisection. Ambi- 
tion and Avarice in the name of missions melted like two drops into 
one. Exposure awoke resentment, resentmnt melted into hatred, 
and hatred, ignoring the circumscriptions of Christian ethics, 
crystallized into heresy. Embezzlement was embalmed by these 
priests of mammon until religion, wrapped in the spicy cerements 
of Christian missions, dried into an Egyptian mummy. The 
court house forced, for confession, the alternative plea of "Not 
Guilty," and not guilty sprouted into perjury, for whosoever 
asserts the one swears the other. And all this grew out of the 
love of money, a root, a tap-root, a Johnson grass tuber, out of 
which grow all kinds of evil. 

The object of this book is to check, if it cannot kill this 
awful evil. s THE AUTHOR. 



FOREWORD. 



Along the Florida coasts may be seen the skeletons of wrecked 
vessels which went aground on the reefs in storm, warning the 
passing mariner of the dangers which lurk in these hidden 
shallows. Along the snowy cliffs of the precipitous Alps are 
hung out danger signals where crevices indicate the treacherous 
and destructive avalanche. Tourists who climb the Matterhorn, 
that huge inverted icicle in the heart of the Alps, or Monte 
Rosa, that mighty bouquet of frozen scentless flowers, observe 
danger flags where the brittle ice has erstwhile sacrificed the 
lives of those who ventured the cold high climb to the summit. 

All the way back to the Apostolic day, and further still to 
Abraham, Noah, and the era before the Flood, are historic warn- 
ings flung out ever, by inspired Preachers, Patriarchs, and 
Prophets. 

These danger signals have their value only in the warnings 
they give. They point cut the danger, and thus save men. 

As the wrecks on the shores, the ice cliffs on the heights, the 
lighthouses on the beach, the beacons on the historic page, and 
the ark on the floods, so is this narrative of an unprecedented 
Conspiracy given in this volume, that it may occur no more. 
Personally, by the universal consensus, the vindication of the 
Plaintiff is complete. And complete without this Book. The De- 
fendants have received their penalty. They deserve no further 
pain. The decision of Ten Incorruptible Judges, Ten Judicial 
Trials, and Sixty Sworn Jurors, have, with all disinterested in- 
telligent people, made the verdict final and irreversible. The 
crime is quasi-criminal, with the light penalty of "actual dam- 
ages of $10,000," and the heavy penalty of "Punitive damages of 
$5,000,"— the heaviest, perhaps, in Texas Criminal Jurisprudence, 
—a mingled verdict of Mercy and Justice. To publish the report 
of these Trials merely to add to the penalty, were inexcusable. 



6 THE COMPLETE 

The only justification, therefore, possible, beyond the mere an- 
nouncement of the verdict, lies in the following considerations: 

1. It is eminently proper that so egregious a crime as Con- 
spiracy and the universal false swearing of the Defendants 
should have permanent form, as a warning to those who are to 
come after us. 

2. There are innocent, honest, but on this matter ignorant 
persons, who need a convenient and yet full account of the ju- 
dicial proceedings had in the case. 

3. There are those who wilfully uphold the Conspiracy, con- 
done the Perjury, and apologize for the Obliquity involved. The 
virtuous element of the denomination are entitled to a full ac- 
count of the Trial, that they may put to silence those Baptists 
who desecrate our principles by defending these wrongs. 

4. Finally, the publication of this book gives the Defend- 
ants every opportunity of whatever vindication of themselves 
is possible on the one hand, or of Repentance, Reformation and 
Restitution on the other. 

This book is not intended to be read seriatim. It will be read 
abundantly, but in chapters. Each chapter is intended to be 
complete in itself, a brochure which may be read without refer- 
ence to the other chapters. This arrangement conduces to the 
better impression upon the memory, and as men are too busy 
to turn attention long from the high tension of this strenuous 
age, the work will be all the more readable, as well as com- 
plete by this artless but natural arrangement. Indeed, it was 
the only way in which, amid crowded daily duties and endless 
editorial details, it could have been written, which method was 
not only enforced, but perhaps best. If it is lacking in the love 
which Christ enjoins, I could wish it were in; if it contains that 
which Christ forbids, I wish it were out. 

This Complete Trial Book would not be published but for 
one controlling reason. Minor reasons may enter into the mo- 
tive of its publication, but only one controls, summed in one 
word — Prevention. The minor second, partly for Vindication and 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL i 

partly for Prevention. This Third Volume goes into the archives 
of The American Baptist Historical Society at Philadelphia, the 
two former being already there. There would be no use for this 
in that collection, were it not true that the Thoughtless Crime 
crystallized into a Party Cult degenerates into an intolerant pas- 
sion. The emotional stroke at Houston, which all people con- 
demn as unjust, injurious and wrong, aimed principally at a 
Person incidentally maims a Principle. Emotional misconduct 
is excusable always, under the law of our human frailty, for we 
are all weak. But this has now become a proclaimed creed, 
which rash measures, tainted money, and dissolute men are in- 
voked to propagate and defend. This Book is published to ex- 
terminate, if possible, but check in any event, a cult as crim- 
inal as Anarchy and as cruel as the Inquisition itself. 

That such publications are necessary for denominational in- 
struction, as facts build history, history itself abundantly attests. 
No one will deny that the symphonies of the skies are preserved 
to us in the printed oratorios of Haydn and Handel, those peer- 
less masters of the musical art. But that they were printed, 
their melodies would have been lost to the human ear forever. 
No heart can hold those harmonious rhapsodies, no ear can re- 
member those passionate notes. The Art Preservative has held 
them on the printed page for all souls, forever. No one who 
has looked on those chromatic glories of Angelo and Raphael, 
and has seen where the cherubim breathed from their brushes 
on Sistine ceiling, arched galleries or plastered walls, need be 
told that but for this incarnation of their thoughts in fresco and 
paint, on canopy, canvas and column, the celestial fire of their 
genius emitting clouds of colored glory and constellations and 
angels and men, would have died in the penetralia remote of 
their own souls, and been lost to the world forever. But they 
were painted, and the paintings have been printed, and the prints 
have been multiplied until the world has felt the ecstasy of their 
emotions. 

So the sins of men and angels are recorded in God's Book aa 
a warning to others. Cain's Club, Noah's Vineyard, Abraham's 



S THECOMPLETE 

Lie, Lot's Greed, Jacob's Craft and Graft, Saul's Obstinacy and 
Witch of Endor, David's Ingratitude to bis Patriot Friend Uriah 
who refused even the accidental comfort of a night's rest at 
Home that he might serve his King, Solomon's Profligacy, Uz- 
ziah's presumptuous Irreverence, Annanias' Mendacity, Peter's 
Cowardice, Simon's Sorcery, — what are these records but danger 
signals that we might take warning? The history recorded in 
this Book warns Baptists of the dangers of departing from 
New Testament Polity and Practice. For these go together as 
substance and shadow. 

As far as is known, the attempt by Board Party leaders to use 
the Baptist General Convention of Texas at Houston, San Anto- 
nio, Waco, and Dallas for party purposes, is universally con- 
ceded, all principle set aside, to have been a "Mistake." That 
is what they call it. Not all perhaps avow it. Some few might 
deny it. But that it was a "Mistake" is conceded to be the 
universal opinion. Why? Because it divides, not unites; en- 
genders friction, not fellowship; it curses, not cures. It at- 
tempted conservation by coercion; conciliation by concealment; 
fellowship by force. It was unreasonable, unwise, impracticable. 
It contained all the injurious elements of inconsistency. It 
could not but be a mistake. This admission by Board Party 
people was inevitable. In the nature of the case it is forced. 
For instance, at Houston, Defendant B. H. Carroll said: "It is a 
dangerous precedent," and then he urged it! At San Antonio 
Defendant J. M. Carroll said in the caucus, "Unless we adopt 
the Challenge and expel S. A. Hayden, we cannot conduct the 
session of the Concention." And then, confronted by the Min- 
utes of the Convention, he swore on the Trial that he said it. 
He also swore in the next breath, what the records of the Court 
confirmed, that "Never did S. A. Hayden open his mouth in any 
Convention from 1894 to 1899, until he was formally arraigned 
by name and put on trial!" This oath was repeated by every 
Defendant who was asked about it! How, then, could have the 
proceedings of the Convention been hindered by a man who had 
"never opened his mouth till arraigned and forced to speak In 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL y 

self-defense?" Surely the confession that it was a "mistake" is 
forced from all the Board Party without a single exception, un- 
less there be those who feel that refusing to believe the truth 
is no "mistake." 

This Book is a lighthouse on rocks, a danger signal to save 
our people from the reefs where madmen have gone down, a 
sign-post that the wayfaring man, though a fool, may not wan- 
der from the old paths. 

In Baptist polity, with the Bible for our chart and the eccle- 
siastical world for our sea, let us follow the caution Virgil sings 
to Aeneas: Littora amas; altem alii teneant — "Hug the shore; 
let others brave the main." Ours is God's Book. Let us sail 
by it. May God bless its mission. 

Make, then, the emphasis doubly strong, that the repetition 
of that "Mistake" be made impossible, or certainly criminal, 
which is the aim of this Book. 

This Complete Conspiracy Trial Book is published, not to 
vindicate or condemn' any man or set of men, but for the good 
it may do. It is not for the man or men who may have done 
wrong or been wronged, but the wrongdoing itself, that it may 
be done no more. Its publication is not only proper, but impera- 
tive. That wrong is most egregrious which assumes to be done 
in the best cause. "The worst thing in the world is the best 
thing perverted." The best thing in the world is the mission 
of the gospel, the gospel of missions. The bad deed done under 
the Aegis of the Gospel Commission is all the worse for the pro- 
tection it secures. The serpent's egg is the more dangerous 
for the warmth of the nest where it is laid. It hatches a surer 
brood from its better incubation. The most dangerous place for 
the adder is a bed of flowers, or a basket of roses. The worst 
seeks the company of the best. Satan sought the conquest of 
the world through the sinless Son of God. Evil unadorned is 
comparatively harmless; garlanded with flowers, wreathed with 
the smoke of a perfumed censor, wafted on the liquid undula- 
tions of sweet music, "moulding its dear delusive shape to every 
taste," what danger comes, what destruction is wrought by sin 



iO THE COMPLETE 

coming to the unsuspecting in such heavenly livery! Young 
ministers will ask, indeed they are asking, if the Elders, for the 
sake of the "Organized Work," for the sake of the "Redeemer's 
kingdom," may caucus, conspire and covenant together, claim- 
ing in it all the "Guidance of the Holy Spirit," may we not emu- 
late their zeal, enterprise and consecration in a cause so holy, 
even if we must, for the nonce, defy the Law, which provides 
against crime, or ignore the Gospel, which provides against sin? 

This Book is for the correction of an evil, not for the con- 
viction of the evildoer. 

Yonder is a train in the Union Station, ready to roll out on 
a journey of a thousand miles. And there is a man with a 
hammer stooping along by the trucks, tapping the wheels, seek- 
ing, if there be a broken one, to detect and take it out, lest on 
a curve right or left, on a grade, up or down, over a trestle, or 
through a tunnel, the whole train be derailed and the sacred 
cargo perish. The compiler of this Book is the Man with the 
hammer; Baptist Principles, which have thus far advanced the 
world toward its heritage of freedom, are the wheels which, if 
perverted or broken, must be ungeared and the false replaced 
by the true, the right for the wrong, that the future journey of 
our people may be better and safer as it nears the opening of 
the celestial day. It is believed that the publication of this 
Book will help, if it does not secure, the immunity of our Baptist 
people from the recurrence of a series of caucuses and conspira- 
cies unprecedented in Baptist history, scarcely paralleled in the 

annals of the world. 

A "majority" vote is pleaded as a justification. That is a 
plea of confession and avoidance, for two reasons: .First, in a 
Convention of nearly 1,500 messengers present on Saturday, 
Monday night they only claimed "582" in favor of the Chal- 
lenge, on their own count! Therefore they had no majority. 
Second, the substitution of a so-called Majority for the Majesty 
of the Truth is a confession. 

Moses said, "Go not with the multitude (majority) to do 
evil." I commend the following, from John B. Gough, in answer 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 11 

to this plea of a majority against a minority, as one of the 
strongest utterances on the subject yet made by man: 

"What is a minority? The chosen heroes of this earth have 
been in a minority. There is not a social, political or religious 
privilege that you enjoy to-day that was not bought for you 
by the blood and tears and patient suffering of the minority. 
It is the minority, that have vindicated humanity in every strug- 
gle. It is the minority that have stood in the van of every moral 
conflict and achieved all that is noble in the history of the world. 
You will find that each generation has been always busy in 
gathering up the scattered ashes of the martyred heroes of the 
past, to deposit them in the golden urn of a nation's history. 
Look at Scotland, where they are erecting monuments — towhom? 
— to the Covenanters. Ah, they were in the minority. Read 
their history, if you can, wiihout the blood tingling to the tips 
of your fingers, that, through blood, and tears, and hooting and 
scourgings — dyeing the waters with their blood and staining 
the heather with their gore — fought the glorious battle of re- 
ligious freedom. Minority! if a man stand up for the right, 
though the right be on the scaffold, while the wrong sits in the 
seat of government; if he stand for right, though he eat, with 
the right and truth, a wretched crust; if he walk with obloquy 
and scorn in the by-lanes and streets, while the falsehood and 
wrong ruffle it in silken attire, let him remember that wherever 
the right and truth are, there are always 

'Troops of beautiful, tall angels' 

around him, and God Himself stands within the dim future, and 
keeps watch over His own! If a man stands for the right and 
truth, though every man's finger be pointed at him, though every 
woman's lip be curled at him in scorn, he stands in a minority; 
for God and good angels are with him, and greater are they 
that are for him, than all they that are against him." 



"Ambition, appetitie and pride, 

These throng and thrall the hearts of men; 
These plat the thorns and pierce the side 

Of Him who in our hearts again 
Is spit upon and crucified. 

The greed for gain, the thirst for power, 
The lust that blackens while it burns; 

Ah, these the whitest souls deflower, 
And one or all of these, by turns 

Rob man of his divinest dower." 



THE COMPLETE 
CHAPTER II. 

"IT HAPPENED." 



"All great events," says Tolstoi, "happen." None of them 
are results of human plans. This is but another way of saying 
that God's plan of every man's life is out of human sight. To 
men, things happen, with God final results are ordained. 

Abraham, Moses, Cyrus, Shakespeare, Bacon, Columbus, Na- 
poleon, Wellington, Lee, happened; so did Waterloo, Manassas, 
Gettysburg and Appomattox. Men are fallible and free. God 
gathers their disheveled actions and weaves them into his wide 
plans. The avatar of the Hindoo is the incarnation of his deity 
in privileged men. From this comes caste. With the Christian, 
God incarnates Himself in results which we call Providence. 
And so as to myself or my choosing, I have happened where I 
am. I did not foresee it. I did not have the strength, even if I 
had had the deserving, of my accidental service whatever it 
has been. I neither saw nor chose my way. 

In 1875 I came to Paris, Texas. All unknown to me, the 
Church was torn in equal twain — over blood! I drew an impar- 
tial, fair, Scriptural paper which the Church adopted. The 
breach was healed as by first intention. It has never embarrass- 
ed the Church since. In 1878 I was called to Jefferson. I found 
one Church and the remnant of another, the division growing 
out of a breach in the original Church. The breach was healed. 
In 1880 I was called to the Broadway Church, Galveston, which 
Church came of a breach in the old First Church. In 1882 the 
two Churches were joined together and no man hath put asun- 
der. In 1883, after a trip to Europe enforced by broken health 
caused by hard work at Galveston, I came to be pastor of the 
Buckner "First Baptist Church of Dallas." I had written some 
score of letters for The Texas Baptist which caused the call. 
Each of these calls "happened" to me. All were brought about 
by others. I thank God for them all, hard as they proved to be 
in the outcome. 

At Dallas there were two Churches, each claiming to be 
"The First Baptist Church of Dallas," each excluding and dis- 
fellowshipping the other. They were organized around their 
respective leaders, Dr. J. B. Link and R. C. Buckner. 

There were two leading Baptist bodies in Texas then, the 
Baptist State Convention, organized at Anderson, South Texas, 



CONSPIRACY TBIAL 13 

in 1848, and the Baptist General Association, organized twenty 
years later at Fairfield, North Texas, in 1868. The Link First 
Church was for the former, the Buckner First Church for the 
latter. 

In South Texas there were three influential men, Drs. J. B. 
Link, F. M. Law and M. V. Smith. In North Texas, were Drs. 
R. C. Burleson, B. H. Carroll and R. C. Buckner. This dual 
Triumvirate swayed their respective sections, the two General 
Organizations following them with almost military fidelity. 

In order to give definite denominational sanction to one or the 
other of the two parties in the First Church, Dallas, known re- 
spectively as the "Link Party" and the "Buckner Party," the 
General Association was called to meet in extra session at Dallas 
in 1880, Rev. R. C. Buckner, who had been formally excluded by 
the Link First Church, being its Corresponding Secretary at the 
time. The General Association sustained the "Buckner Party" 
as "The First Baptist Church of Dallas." The Link Party re- 
mained in possession of the property, the Buckner Party going 
to a new location. Accordingly, when in 1883 I was called to 
the "Buckner First Church," not believing it to be the "First 
Baptist Church of Dallas," I could not conscientiously accept 
the pastorate of a Church claiming to be what I believed anoth- 
er was. I made this known to Dr. Buckner and at my sugges- 
tion, his claim to the name of the "First Baptist Church" was 
"waived," and the name, the "Live Oak Street Baptist Church" 
adopted. All acts affecting fellowship between the two Church- 
es were at my suggestion rescinded by both bodies, and after an 
estrangement lasting three years, unity was restored. All these 
calls and reunions were at first unforseen and undesigned by 
me. They "happened" to me, as men say. They fell into beau- 
tiful forms like particolored bits of glass in God's kaleidoscope. 
Gravity fixed the figures in the kaleidoscope, Providence, in the 
Church. The human hands that turned the instruments knew 
not what they did. There was light in the sun for the mystical 
law of refraction; there was pity in the skies causing "all things 
to work together for good to them that love God." But the fu- 
ture, its connection with the past in providential sequence, who 
can know it? 

There were then two rival Baptist papers, the Texas Baptist 
Herald, Dr. J. B. Link, editor and proprietor, at Houston, geog- 
raphically, at least, the organ of the Baptist State Convention, 
and The Texas Baptist, Dr. R. C. Buckner, editor and proprietor, 
Dallas, the acknowledged organ of the General Association. For 



14 THE COMPLETE 

years Dr. O. C. Pope was Associate Editor on Dr. Link's, and 
Dr. H. B. Carroll Associate Editor on Dr. Buckner's paper. The 
unification of the Churches at Paris, Jefferson, Galveston and 
Dallas was the antecedent of a new and unthought of conse- 
quent. The unexpected settlement between the rival Churches 
at Dallas, the rescinding of the act of exclusion of Dr. Bucknei 
restoring him in the estimation of all the parties to the ministry, 
he immediately proposed to sell me his paper. My provi- 
dential connection with the restoration of unity in the Churches 
at Paris, Jefferson, Galveston and Dallas suggested it; my 
European letters sealed it. I had no means except some un- 
valuable lands. He accepted them and a little borrowed cash 
for his paper. 

June 8, 1883, I edited my first issue, proposing vaguely to my 
own mind: "The Unification of the Baptists of Texas." It was 
purely visionary, for I did not know how or whether it could 
be at all. I was open to any Scriptural plan. But after three 
years of endeavor it resulted in the unification of the two lead- 
ing general Baptist bodies and some smaller organizations, the 
two Universities at Independence and at Waco, and finally the 
two papers. It all came in unthought and unplanned ways. 
Each event fell into its place as in God's combination lock and 
quite out of the sight of men. 

The masses prayed for it, but doubted; the classes gave it 
faint praise and scouted. It was visionary, incredible, and be- 
lieved by the leaders only after it "happened." 

But what place has all this in The Complete Conspiracy Trial 
Book? We shall see. 

The Dual Triumvirate. 

The three influential Baptist men in the State Convention 
were a threefold cord not easily broken. They were not so 
much three men as they were one. Drs. Link, Law, Smith were 
never known to divide on any issue. The mother Convention 
was to them more than the Alma Mater. It had become their 
Madonna for whose protection they locked shields with knightly 
fervor! The General Association was, to them, an Errant Daugh- 
ter who should have remained at home. In North- Texas was 
the Triumvirate, Burleson, Carroll, Buckner holding their Aegis 
over their Daughter's form! It was a picture for mediaeval 
heraldry. These were not six men, but two, for each Triumvirate 
acted as one! The masses followed these men as soldiers fol- 
low their commanders, not knowing whither they went nor 



OONSPlEAO'Y TBIAL 15 

why, only to battle. Nothing like it has occurred before in Bap- 
tist history. It "happened." It was never designed by any of 
them. The houses of York and Lancaster had come to Texas. 

These Triumvirates arranged annual campaigns. They felt 
it not only right but necessary. The two newspapers were their 
bulletins to martial their forces for the annual contest. The 
precision of their plans was matched only by their secrecy ; 
Emulation as to who can best work and pray had crystalized 
into an ecclesiastical militarism. 

When in 1883 The Texas Baptist, the organ of the General 
Association, passed into new control, the Triumvirate in North 
Texas was broken. The organ was in new hands. It was 
so unexpected and sudden that alarm, not to say panic, ensued 
The South Texas Triumvirate was thought to be 'behind it. 
Men who fear evil, surmise it, and then think they see it. To 
relieve this baseless suspicion my first editorial announced 
that: "No matter affecting the interests of the Churches would 
be withheld from them and no confidences had been or would 
be entered into involving the rights and interests of the Bap- 
tists of Texas." This announcement increased the alarm of 
the few, but gained the approval of the many. The Churches 
felt gratified to be recognized as the custodians of their own in- 
terests. They had been acting under the necessity of their sit- 
uations not always from their own knowledge. Now they would 
know all and they rejoiced. They took a long breath. But in 
this little, almost accidentally conceived editorial, lay the be- 
ginning, in embryo, of the Conspiracy of a decade later. I was 
asked to reconsider this editorial and enter the Triumvirate ot 
the General Association. "I must agree to keep secrets." It 
was urged that "there were things that men could 'confidential- 
ly,' but could not otherwise say, and that to secure that con- 
fidence, it must be pledged in advance!" I pleaded that I had 
already gone to print on "denominational confidences" and to 
go back now, would involve a public withdrawal which was 
ruinous, or the practice of duplicity if entered into without open 
withdrawal, which was more ruinous. I admitted that there were 
denominational matters that need not and ought not to be pub- 
lished, and that there were confidences subject to discretion. 
But to agree formally to "confidential plans" of Baptists against 
Baptists, the slightest deviation from which involved dishonor, 
was not only dangerous, but deadly. This refusal was not only 
the first obstacle in the way of the Unification of the Baptists 
of Texas, but the provocation of the beginning of the troubles 



16 THE COMPLETE 

that resulted in the Conspiracy over a decade later, as will be 
seen. All this "happened" so. It was not so planned of any 
man or men. 

The Unification of the Baptists of Texas. 

Following now step by step but hastily, the intervening 
events; one month after this editorial was published, the Gen- 
eral Association met at Cleburne, July, 1883. I wrote and Dr. 
S. J. Anderson offered on Saturday resolutions proposing "The 
Unification of the Baptists of Texas." These resolutions lay 
over for action till Monday. Drs. R. C. Burleson and B. H. 
Carroll opposed them strenuously. Dft. Carroll left Cleburne 
Saturday for his home in Waco and returned no more. Monday, 
after general discussion, Dr. Burleson, always too great to be 
understood, after speaking, together with Drs. W. H. Parks, A. 
J. Holt, G. W. Pickett, United States Senator Sam Bell Maxey 
and others against the resolutions, only one person speaking for 
them, they were by a good majority adopted, Dr. Burleson, no- 
bility personified, voting for them! The result was a surprise 
to all! It seemed to have happened! 

Two years later the General Association met for the last time. 
It was at Ennis, July, 1885. The spirit of the Cleburne resolu- 
tions had permeated all minds. I offered the following- resolu- 
tions : 

How Dr. Burleson Became Involved. 

"We believe that we do but express the sentiment of the 
great Baptist family of Texas, as well as provide for the best in- 
terests of the proposed consolidated University in making it a 
condition of such consolidation that Rufus C. Burleson, D.D.LL.D., 
the only survivor of the great men who have laid the founda- 
tion of Baptist education in Texas, and who has spent his entire 
life in that work, be made the Chancellor for life of the said 
consolidated University with adequate salary." 

These resolutions were introduced on Saturday and lay over 
for action till Monday. Dr. S. J. Anderson equally joined me in 
advancing them. 

Both Drs. R. C. Burleson and B. H. Carroll strenuously op- 
posed these resolutions and by a singularly reversed coinci- 
dence, Defendant Carroll changed and finally voted for the reso- 
lutions, Dr. Burleson being the only one who voted, no. At this 
Ennis meeting, this "confidential" offense was intensified. De- 
fendant B. H. Carroll labored to induce Dr. S. J. Anderson and 
myself to desist from pressing the resolutions, giving as his rea- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 17 

son the fact that the population, especially the Baptist population 
of North Texas was increasing rapidly, while the immigration 
into North Texas from South Texas was weakening the Baptist 
forces there; that Baylor University at Independence was grow- 
ing weaker and weaker, its most accessible railroad station be- 
ing twelve miles away and if let alone it would gradually go 
down. On the other hand, Waco University was in a thriving 
section of Texas with railroad facilities, a growing patronage and 
the prospect of financial strength in the endowment then on 
foot." Resolutions declaring in effect that the "General Associa- 
tion had no power to control Churches" were at the same time 
offered by Dr. Anderson to meet the objection of certain breth- 
ren in South Texas, and referring to the "Called Session" of the 
General Association in 1880 declaring the Buckner Party the 
First Church of Dallas. Defendant Carroll hotly objected to 
these conciliatory resolutions, saying the Link Party would 
say: "They have puked up the hook." To the argument of 
the embarrassments of Baylor University at Independence and 
the Baptists of South Texas, Dr. Anderson and myself both an- 
swered that to our minds, the facts rather called for magnan- 
imity on our part, as the Scriptures require the "strong to bear 
the infirmities of the weak." Both resolutions were adopted unan- 
imously, except that, on the University resolutions, Dr. Burleson 
voted, "No." And to that position as against his own promotion, 
he stood till finally out-voted at every point, when he gracefully 
yielded, like the great man he was. Thus at Ennis, in 1885, 
came the next irritating incident that was never forgotten. 

At Lampasas, in October, 1885, only three months after the 
Ennis meeting, the terms of consolidation were tentatively 
agreed to by the State Convention, and Committees representing 
the two General bodies met at Temple two months later, De- 
cember, 1885, to agree upon terms of Unification. 

There and then happened the third incident that culminated 
in the Conspiracy as follows: The Committee from the General 
Association was called in caucus by Defendant B. H. Carroll 
when he proposed that "each committeeman pledge himself to 
demand of the Convention Committee as a condition precedent 
to consolidation, that the three schools, Baylor University 
(male), at Independence; Baylor College (female) at the same 
place, and Waco University (male and female) at Waco, all be 
located at one and the same place." The effect of this, if 
successful, would put everything at Waco, or if not successful de- 
feat Unification. In either event Defendant Carroll would have 



18 THE OOMPLBTE 

gained his point. So far as I know every member of the Commit- 
tee representing the General Association except myself agreed 
to this. Indeed the Committee representing the State Convention 
got it that "it had been so agreed" and it was so published in Dr. 
Link's paper the week following. But I refused. I was the only 
recalcitrant member of the Committee. But I saved the cause 
of Unification. The dissatisfaction of Defendant B. H. Carroll 
was intense. Indeed it is but the simple truth to say, it was a 
rage. It was distressing at least to me, but as the sequel will 
show, had I yielded, consolidation would have been defeated. 

Within two days after the Committee met all interests were 
consolidated except the two papers, the consolidated University 
to be at Waco, the Female College at Belton. 

At the close of the two days' session, all now ready for ad- 
journment, Dr. Burleson arose in the Joint Committee and said: 
"I was opposed, from beginning to end, while the editors favored, 
consolidation. Now I yield; will not the editors consolidate 
their papers as all agree that this is necessary to conserve what 
has been done?" I arose and proposed consolidation then and 
there. But to my proposal Dr. Link made no response whatever, 
and the Joint Committee adjourned sine die. Immediately, Drs. 
Link and Carroll held a "confidetial interview," at which, as 
was afterwards learned, it was agreed that Dr. Link, then pub- 
lishing at Austin, should move his paper to Waco in two weeks. 
Defendant Carroll was to keep this a "secret." On the train 
coming from Temple to Waco the same evening, Refendant Car- 
roll sent me word in another car that he "was unable to com- 
municate to me in person what he knew, but for me to move The 
Texas Baptist to Waco immediately." He afterwards told me 
and others that Dr. Link had told him "in confidence" not to 
disclose his move to Waco, and that Defendant Carroll had ac- 
cepted the statement "confidentially," but that on account of 
what Dr. Link had published about him previously, "he hated him 
as he hated a rattlesnake." "But," said Defendant Carroll, "as 
Dr. Link promised to publish nothing that I objected to and 
reject nothing that I offered for publication, I could not object 
to his coming to Waco, but felt at liberty to let you know in- 
directly that he was coming." I declined to go to Waco and 
thus gave a fourth serious offense! 

From December, 1885, when the schools and general bodies 
were provisionally consolidated at Temple, until July, 1886, when 
the consolidated Baptist General Convention of Texas first met 
at Waco, the excitement ran high over the "Location" of the 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 19 

to be consolidated paper, Defendant Carroll siding with Dr. Link 
for Waco and the friends of The Texas Baptist contending for 
Dallas. Several Committees mutually selected had agreed on 
everything except "Location." As stated, the first meeting of 
the Convention was at Waco, July, 1886. The location of the 
consolidated paper was there decided by formal vote of the 
Convention, Waco, on the first ballot, receiving 168 votes and 
Dallas 169. A second ballot gave Waco 174 and Dallas 177. So 
the paper came to Dallas. Then Dr. Link sold his part to me 
and I became sole owner. Defendant Carroll expressed regret, 
giving as his reason that "Dr. Hayden would not accept con- 
fidences." 

In 1888 what is known as the "Hanks Scandal" broke out in 
Dallas and in 1889 Defendant Hanks published The Western Bap- 
tist, as he claimed, "for his own defense." 

Defendant. Carroll in 1890 wrote and published in The Texas 
Baptist Herald an article saying that although "sorely needing at 
times a paper at Waco, yet he felt honor bound to support the 
Baptist Herald," which he declared was "equal in spirit and 
matter to any Baptist paper in the denomination, and was con- 
stantly getting better," adding, "notwithstanding it did not in all 
things meet his views," alluding to my refusal to "receive con- 
fidences about denominational interests." 

I am tracing the happenings of the Texas imbroglio. It is 
essential to a knowledge of the abnormal condition of affair? 
here, paralleled nowhere in Baptist history. 

Journalistic Piracy. 

The following headlands like promotories along the shore 
mark the coast of a stormy sea. 

In 1886, at the consolidation, A. J. Holt was made Corre- 
sponding Secretary. At Houston, in 1889, after three years' ser- 
vice, he resigned after re-election and J. B. Cranfill was elected. 
Dr. Holt was editor of the Children's Corner in The Texas Baptist 
Herald, and when Defendant Cranfill came in, he took Dr. Holt's 
place on the paper. 

In March, 1891, the State Board, at Secretary Cranfill's sug- 
gestion, started the State Mission Journal, to be published month- 
ly in the interest of missions. Secretary Cranfill, who was 
editing the Children's Corner in The Texas Baptist Herald, ask- 
ed me for the Herald Subscription List, to be used in sending 
out the State Mission Journal to the Herald readers. To help 
missions, the list was given him. Later, about the beginning of 
1892, he got the list again, promising his honor to use it only 



20 THE COMPLETE 

in mailing the State Mission Journal for the advancement of 
missions. 

In March, 1892, he bought Defendant R. T. Hanks' Western 
Baptist, published at Dallas, resigned his Secretaryship and 
began the publication of the Hanks' paper, calling it The Texas 
Baptist Standard, in Waco. Not long afterward subscribers to 
The Texas Baptist Herald began to write me that they were re- 
ceiving Dr. Cranfill's paper. The entire Herald list at Calvert 
got Cranfill's paper. One subscriber noticed the label of The 
Texas Baptist Herald list, date and all, of Defendant Cranfill's 
first number identified by type-marks. Others all over the 
State, got it and wrote me asking an explanation. I wrote De- 
fendant Cranfill complaining of it, and he replied denying it. 
But the proof was overwhelming and positive. It was proven 
on the trial that he had used the Herald list as at Hearne, and 
his sworn statement shows that he transcribed the Journal list 
entire to his own subscription list gotten at least in part through 
the Herald list. Thus by his own oath he first secured subscrib- 
ers for the Journal from the Herald list and then transferred 
them to his own Standard list. So by the testimony of witnesses 
and by his own oath he used this privilege for missions for his 
own private benefit. 

Defendant B. H. Carroll Enters the Breach. 

This journalistic piracy went on until in 1893, I wrote De- 
fendant B. H. Carroll asking him as Defendant Cranfill's pastor 
and friend to influence him if he could, to desist. Defendant 
Carroll took offense at this and espoused Cranfill's side. De- 
fendant Carroll, however, traces the breach to his refusal to 
let me publish his sermons. It is the truth, I never wanted to 
publish his sermons and it was at the solicitation of his own 
stenographer that the sermons were involved in the case. Here 
are the facts: : In September, 1893, I received a letter from 
Defendant Carroll's stenographer, Mr. Stewart, saying he would 
like to furnish me one of Defendant Carroll's sermons a week 
for $5.00 each. I sent the letter to Defendant Carroll saying 
I would accept Mr. Stewart's proposal if agreeable to Defendant 
Carroll. I had for years been publishing Spurgeon's sermons. I 
had previously declined the written offer by one of Defendant 
Carroll's members, and as he had felt hurt at my refusal to 
accept "denominational confidences," and had then in 1890 stood 
for the Texas Baptist Herald on his "honor," I feared a refusal 
would be to him an indication of my lack of friendship. In reply 



OONSPIEAC'Y TRIAL 21 

to my letter enclosing Mr. Stewart's letter, Defendant Carroll 
wrote me that his "Morning Sermons" were engaged to The 
Standard, but that he would revise his "Night Sermons addressed 
to the unconverted for publication in The Herald if I would pay 
him $5.00 a sermon for his work." He revised and sent two or 
three of his "Night Sermons," and I announced that I would pub- 
lish them; that "they were his heart sermons and far better 
than his 'Morning Sermons,' which were from his head; that 
'Spurgeon's' were readable only because they were addressed 
to the unconverted,' " etc. 

Then came a letter from Mr. Stewart saying that Dr. Cran- 
fill had objected to Dr. Carroll's sending his Night Sermons to 
The Herald, and predicting trouble,, saying he had received in- 
timation over the phone. Mr. Stewart's letter was followed in a 
day or two by a letter from Defendant Carroll confirming what 
Mr. Stewart had written me, and The Standard published that 
my announcement about Dr. Carroll's sermons was "unauthor- 
ized." I never wanted Defendant Carroll's sermons. He is an 
able preacher, but his sermons are better heard than read. His 
"Morning Sermons" are prolix to the last degree, and I am per- 
suaded that the reading of them through by any one was excep- 
tional. But over Defendant Carroll's protest, I published the 
sermons he had sent me to show that I had made the announce- 
ment in good faith, and that it was not "unauthorized." The gal- 
ley list episode had parted Editor Cranfill, Pastor Carroll and 
myself. We were all on the Board when the open breach came 
in April, 1894. But with the exception of the piratical use o5 
my subscription list obtained by Defendant Cranfill on his vol- 
unteered "honor" to be used exclusively in the sacred cause of 
missions, I had no suspicion of any wrong in connection with 
his Secretaryship of the mission work. Thus newspaper com- 
petition to supply "a sore need at Waco, was not of Texas Bap- 
tist troubles. Thus stood matters till April, 1894. 

Origin of the Reform Paper. 

In February, 1894, it was published officially in The Texas 
Baptist Herald that "the mimssionaries were living on bread 
alone." The statement was repeated all over Texas. The Board 
was in debt $6,000, but this was not generally known. 

About this time Rev. W. C. Luther, the Corresponding Sec 
retary of the Texas Baptist Sunday School Convention, came 
to the office of The Texas Baptist Herald and told me 
that Secretary J. M. Carroll was getting $2500 a year, 



22 THE COMPLETE 

having only his wife and one child in family; was 
paying his brother-in-law, nephew and niece out of the mis- 
sion fund, $75, $50 and lower, a month, and $20 a month rent on 
a room in his home, while he, Luther, was getting only $1500 
a year, having a large family, and that his Sunday School Board 
had suggested an increase of his salary, but he was in doubt 
about accepting it, etc." Dr. Luther said further, that he 
had written Secretary Carroll for an itemized statement of his 
salary and expenses which Carroll had given by letter, but en- 
joined on him, Luther, to keep it to himself, "lest if known it 
might injure the organize* work." Hence on April 2, I addressed 
a letter to each member of the State Board, saying: : "If no one 
else does, I will propose reduction of expenses, etc." This, as 
we will see, set the Carrolls aflame! 

The Open Breach at Last. 

April 10, 1894, the Board met at Waco. B. H. Carroll and 
J. M. Carroll both refused to speak to me. Seeing their great 
anger, I tried to conciliate Defendant B. H. Carroll, who took up 
his brother's case, saying I had "attacked him and the Board," 
asking through a mutual friend an interview. He refused to 
meet me. I asked him, through Dr. S. J. Anderson, to meet 
met in the presence of other brethren. He still refused. His 
anger seemed uncontrollable. This was just before the Board 
met Tuesday morning, April 10, 1894. When the Board met he 
demanded by resolution that I "put my complaint in writing." 
When the Board adjourned for dinner, I went to a stenographer, 
dictated, wrote out, and at two p. m. read to the Board the 
"Reform Paper." 

Secretary J. M. Carroll promptly demanded that I specify 
who had proposed to keep anything "secret." I replied saying 
"whoever had done so had no doubt done so in good faith, think- 
ing it was for the best, and it was not necessary to specify. 1 
only expressed my own views without blaming anyone for 
his views." But a perermptory demand was made on me for 
specification then and there! This demand being iterated over 
and over again, I was at last fairly forced to say that: "He, 
J. M. Carroll, had written a letter asking that his salary and ex- 
penses be kept secret lest if made known it might hurt the or- 
ganized work," and that "if he denied it, I would produce the 
letter, etc." He immediately took his seat, but was so angry 
that he soon afterwards stated in the open Board that "he would 
freely give $1,000 out of his salary to lick S. A. Hayden." This 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 23 

and no more, Dr. R. C. Burleson stated privately and on oath, is 
what Defendant J. M. Carroll said. But on the trial he claimed 
to have added the phrase: "If it were right;" as if that altered 
the ethical aspect of the case. 

In opposition to my Reform Paper proposing to reduce J. M. 
Carroll's salary back to the old figure of $2100 a year, "the con- 
tract for $2500 a year" was pleaded by Defendant B. H. Carroll 
as "inviolable till the year was out." This forced the withdrawal 
of the Reform Paper and it was agreed in the Board at my re- 
quest that the unpleasant episode should not be published and 
no agitation should be had until the Convention met at Marshall 
six months later, when these matters of expense could be consid- 
ered. The Board adjourned April 11, and on April 12 and 13 
the whole affair, in the most perverted shape, appeared in the 
Waco Telephone, published in J. B. Cranfill's office and on his 
press, and was sent to the Fort Worth Gazette and given state 
wide publication. 

From Fort Worth Gazette, April 13, 1894. 

THEY SAT ON DR. HAYDEN. 



Tlie Baptist State Mission Board Adjourns.— The Charges Against 

the Secretary and His Assistant Thoroughly Investigated 

and Both Completely Vindicated. — Cause of the Rotv. 



Special Dispatch: 

Waco, Texas, April 12. — The meeting of the Baptist State Mis- 
sion Board, which has been in progress in Waco since Tuesday 
morning, adjourned last night. It was the longest session of 
the Board ever held, and the tempest in- a tea-pot which kept it 
together was raised by Dr. S. A. Hayden, of Dallas, whom sev- 
eral members say has been concerned in most of the Baptist 
troubles in Texas for the past dozen years. Before the meeting 
of the Board, he sent out circulars to various parts of the State 
in which he charged specifically that the Board had been keeping 
matters hidden from the public which the public ought to know; 
that the debt of the Board had greatly increased; that the expenses 
were more than ever before; and that the number of mission- 
aries was less. A committee consisting of Hon. L. L. Foster of 
Austin; Rev. R. C. Burleson, of Waco; Rev. A. J. Fawcett, D. D., 
of Tyler, and Rev. W. C. Lattimore and A. J. Harris of Belton, 
was appointed by the Board to consider the charges made by 
Dr. Hayden. After a most painstaking and careful examination 
of all the affairs connected with the Board, the committee unan- 
imously reported that every single allegation was totally untrue. 
Their report specifically states that nothing has been kept from 
the public whatever; that the Board has had no secrets; that the 
expenses of the Board are less than ever before in the history of 
the consolidated mission work; that the debt on mission work has 
decreased, and this in s^ ite of the widely prevalent financial de- 
pression, and that there are more missionaries in the employ of 
the Board than there were at the beginning of the present con- 
ventional year. 

Several of those who opposed Dr. Hayden's charges say that 
the effect of the committee's report has been to unhorse him. 



24 THE COMPLETE 

They declare that the Corresponding Secretary, Rev. J. M. Car- 
roll, of Lampasas, brother of Dr. B. H. Carroll, of Waco, is one 
of their most able and efficient Secretaries, and that no other 
mission agent in any State is doing anything like the work he 
is doing. They say that Dr. Hayden's attack on him and his 
work was due to the fact that Rev. Hayden recently tried to force 
Dr. B. H. Carroll of this city to* allow him, Hayden, the privilege 
of printing his, Carroll's ser*nons, but was denied the privilege. 
This, they state, angered Rev. Hayden and caused him to busy 
himself with making the Carrolls uncomfortable. The Mission 
Board at the meeting was the most largely attended held in 
Waco for years, and upon its close resolutions expressing the 
most thorough confidence in Rev. J. M. Carroll and his assistant, 
Rev. M. D. Early, were unanimously adopted." 



So great was this outrage that all the Board members gave 
me exculpatory certificates in writing, B. H. Carroll, J. M. Car- 
roll and J. B. Cranfill only refusing. 

Bonham, April 16th, 1894. 
Rev. S. A. Hayden, D. D., Dallas, Texas: 

I can and do state with pleasure that you repeatedly and. em- 
phatically disclaimed before the Board any intentional reflection 
upon the hard working and efficient agents of the Board, Rev. 
J. M. Carroll and Rev. M. D. Early, or any other person whom- 
soever. A. B. MILLER. 

Belton, Texas, April 15, 1894. 
Rev. S. A. Hayden, D. D., Dallas, Texas: 

While I was present you made no verbal charges against any 
one. Second, the circular referred to in the "Special Dispatch" 
and your written statement speak for themselves. Third, you 
did verbally affirm, repeatedly, your absolute confidence in the 
integrity and efficiency of Rev. J. M. Carroll and Rev. M. D. 
Early and all concerned. A. J. HARRIS. 



Tyler; Texas, April 16, 1904. 
Rev. S. A. Hayden, D. D., Dallas, Texas: 

My Dear Brother: Your letter of the 14th instant, together 
with a "Special Dispatch" to the Fort Worth Gazette, is received. 
In reply, I will say: If you made any charge against Rev. J. M. 
Carroll and Rev. M. D. Early, it was done when I was absent 
from the room; I did not hear any such charge. But this I will 
say, you did affirm repeatedly in the open session of the Board, 
ycur absolute confidence in the integrity and efficiency of these 
brethren. I am yours fraternally, A. J. FAWCETT. 

Austin, Tex., April 17, 1894. 
Rev. S. A. Hayden, D. D., Dallas, Texas: 

My Dear Brother: Your letter of the 14th inst., and also a 
co^y of a special dispatch which appeared in the Fort Worth 
Gazette on the 13th inst., are before me. In your letter you say: 
"As a member of the Board and desiring to do the best I can 
for our missionary work, I fraternally request you to write me 
whether I made before that Board any charges against Rev. J. M. 
Carroll, Supt. of Missions, Rev. M. D. Early, General Missionary, 
or any one whomsoever." Replying to this request, I would say, 
that while I understood you to charge the Board with misman- 
agement, you did not within my hearing make any personal 
charges against Bro. J. M. Carroll, Bro. M. D. Early, or any one 
else. If such charges were made, it was when I was absent from 



CONSPIRACY TEIAL 25 

the Board on special committee work. You then ask: "Did I not 
affirm repeatedly my absolute confidence in the integrity . and 
efficiency of Rev. J. M. Carroll and M. D. Early and all concerned?" 
I have a distinct recollection that you not only expressed re- 
peatedly your confidence in the integrity and efficiency of Breth- 
ren J. M. Carroll and M. D. Early, but that you also, in common 
with the other members of the Board, pledged yourself to do ah 
within your power to make their work a success. 

W. C. LATTIMORE. 

The Rage of the Carrolls. 

But now the war was on. The publication of these exculpa- 
tory certificates gave immense offense. The Carrolls were en- 
raged and irreconcilable. Accordingly they had a meeting of 
the Board "called" for June 26 to "Answer attacks on Secretary 
J. M. Carroll and the Board." I was notified by J. M. Carroll 
to attend. I wrote that a member of my family was dangerously 
sick and I could not attend; that the regular quarterly meeting 
was only two weeks off, and I asked that the meeting be post- 
poned until then. But the meeting went on. A report written 
largely by B. H. Carroll was prepared and read by J. M. Car- 
roll before the Board about midnight. Few of the Board mem- 
bers heard it. Holding a bundle of documents in his hand while 
he read, he invited anyone to "call for the proof of his statements 
which he held in his hand." At the conclusion of the reading 
Defendant B. H. Carroll requested each of the seventeen mem- 
bers of the Board present to sign it. 

"It Will Crush Hayden." 

' Then Defendant B. H. Carroll, as the Board Records show, of- 
fered a resolution that "A copy be furnished all the great dailies 
in Texas with request to publish the following Sunday." As- 
sistant Secretary M. D. Early, a day or two afterwards, refer- 
ring to this proposed publication, said: "It will crush Hayden." 
The "Great Dailies," however, refused to publish the libelous 
document. The Carrolls and Cranfill were disappointed and 
proceeded to publish it in a Pamphlet entitled, "Important In- 
formation Concerning Two Board Meetigs," and paid Cranfill for 
it out of the mission fund, $148.25." See Minutes of State Con- 
vention 1894, p. 32. 

The document was most libelous against me, but disastrous 
against Cranfill and the Carrolls in the end. I determined not 
to leave my children under the shame of the charges, nor in- 
dulge a resentful spirit towards any one, nor yield the truth 
the breadth of a hair. The words which expressed my feelings 



26 THjU COMPLETE 

then have been written by some one who I do not know, as fol- 
lows: 

"Last and greatest of the triumphs of self-confidence will 
abide its victory over fear: If God is with me, whom or what 
shall I fear? It is because of the regnant selfhood in W. E. 
Henley's lines that men have almost against the teaching of 
years been forced to admire them: 



Westward the woodland circle is aflame 

With tawny fire that tips the stately trees 

And fair Aurora, who at dawning came 
Uprising- from a mist of dappled seas, 
Has faded with the mourning even breeze; 

Above the bare, brown fields the night hawks fly 

With vague, erratic pinions swooping by 

That curve and dip in restless, roving flight 

And, as a wood thrush sounds his liquid cry, 
A star burns in the windows of the night. 

Tfce blackening lines of home-bound crows proclaim 
A prescient sense of twilight mysteries, 

Where shadowland and silence are the same 
Fast locked upon a tide of grassy leas: 
Along the slopes the cattle rest at ease, 

While, all invisible to human eye, 

The misty dews, sown softly far and nigh, 
Descend in benediction from their height; 

And while the sunset glories pale and die, 

A star burns in the windows of the night. 

Against the dim horizon's narrowing frame 
The last faint line of distant orange flees, 

And winds that once no Borean will could tame 
Have strung their harps to wailing minor keys 
That seem the ghosts of long-dead melodies. 

Which through the somber forest-vistas sigh; 

The darkness gathers in the vaults on high, 
Shrouding the universe with sable might; 

And lonely swung, the gloom to beautify 

A star burns in the windows of the night. . 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 27 

CHAPTER III. 

THE ORIGIN OP BAPTIST LITIGATION. 

The origin of the litigations among the Baptists of Texas 
dates back to 1889. It began with the Board Party! And yet 
they denounced going to law as a violation of 1 Cor. 6:1-8, even 
to meet them in the Court House in self-defense against their 
own allegations! 

1. The first lawsuit was instituted in 1889 by E. A. Ferrin, 
a member of the First Baptist Church, against S. A. Hayden, 
growing out of the Scandal of R. T. Hanks, who instigated Ferrin 
to bring the suit. The Hanks-Ferrin suit against S. A. Hayden 
was the first. They began it, and complained that I violated 1 
Cor. 6:1-8. On the same day that Ferrin instituted his suit 
against me, I instituted a cross-action against Ferrin. The trial 
of Ferrin came on. Ferrin was convicted, fined, and paid his 
penalty. The trial of S. A. Hayden, prosecuted by Hanks and 
Ferrin, came up later in the same court. Hayden announced 
"ready." Hanks, Ferrin and State's Attorney D. A. Williams 
were all in the Court Room when the case was called. When 
Hayden answered "ready," Ferrin, Hanks and Attorney Williams 
retired to a room together for private consultation, and return- 
ing, asked the Court to "dismiss the case!" Thereupon S. A. 
Hayden "protested" in writing, stating that all the allegations 
concerning R. T. Hanks involved in the case were true; that 
the proof was ready to be presented to the Court; that the with- 
drawal of the suit by the prosecuting witnesses was intended to 
shield them from the exposure of their guilt; that inasmuch as 
the prosecution had been instituted by those now attempting to 
withdraw it, in the interest of public morals, of law and of 
justice, the case ought to be legally tried; and while admitting 
the power of the Court to allow a case to be withdrawn, yet S. A. 
Hayden insisted upon his right to an investigation to show the 
injustice of arraigning him before the Court and then refusing 
him an opportunity of proving the truth of the statement upon 
which he had been arraigned. 



28 THE COMPLETE 

The Protest. 

State of Texas 

vs. i 

S. A. Hayden. 

In the County Court, Dallas County, A. D. 1889: And now 
comes the Defendant (S. A. Hayden) in the above styled and 
numbered case by his attorney, and' files this demurrer to and 
protest against a dismissal of this cause, and especially the rea- 
sons assigned by the prosecuting attorney for dismissing the 
same. 

The Defendant says that he is ready, anxious and willing to 
establish through this judicial tribunal his innocence of the 
charge of slander in the case preferred against him, and to es- 
tablish the truth and consistency of anything and everything 
that he may have said or done in connection with what is known 
as the "Hanks-Ferrin scandal." 

And while the Defendant, notwithstanding his keen desire to 
have this case thoroughly sifted in this Court, to the end that 
injured innocence might be vindicated, and the guilty creatures 
who have been privately prosecuting herein, and attempting to 
hound down and persecute this Defendant, to hide their guilty 
conduct and subserve their carnal and venal ends; still this De- 
fendant concedes the State's right to dismiss any prosecution, how- 
ever great a hardship it might result to a Defendant. But in 
dismissing a criminal prosecution, the Defendant humbly sub- 
mits the State is confined to legitimate public reasons for so 
doing, and that it is an outrage upon the helpless condition of 
a Defendant to permit private persons to inject into the prose- 
cuting officer's reasons for dismissing a case, cowardly, false and 
malicious statements in no wise pertinent to a dismissal of this 
case. 

Defendant prays the protection of the Court against the un- 
warranted and illegal reasons set forth in the motion made by 
the State to dismiss this case, and asks that said motion be 
overruled, because insufficient, and because it is an assault upon, 
an insult to, and abuse of the dignity and majesty of this tri- 
bunal and the law at large. THOMPSON & CLINT, 

Attorneys for Defendant. 

In the face of this "Protest," read by my attorney Judge Chas. 
P. Clint, eminent in his profession and distinguished for his high 
character (since then for ten years Judge of the Criminal Court 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 29 

at Dallas), the said Ferrin, Hanks and State's Attorney D. A. 
Williams withdrew the suit! Under the circumstances, this ac- 
knowledged the truth of S. A. Hayden's statements on which he 
had been arraigned before the Court. This ended the second 
Baptist court case in Texas. Ferrin immediately left Texas, 
and I have never heard of him since. 

This is mentioned to show the bad faith of the Defendants in 
the Conspiracy Cases, who appeal to 1 Cor. 6:1-8, as forbidding 
Baptists going to law! A thing which they themselves first in- 
stigated ! 

Defendant R. T. Hanks, the real instigator of the first case 
in court, is the author of the Challenge, and one of those acqui- 
escing in the Confession of Judgment in two of the Conspiracy 
Cases. 

3. The Third Court Case is that of the Conspiracy at San 
Antonio, 1897, an account of which is given in this Complete 
Conspiracy Trial Book. 

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Cases: J. B. 
Cranfill in 1898 instituted six criminal libel prosecutions against 
S. A. Hayden; four at Dallas; one at Waco, McLennan County; 
and one at McKinney, Collin County. 

How These Six Prosecutions Arose. 
In September, 1898, The Texas Baptist Herald fully uncov- 
ered the embezzlement of mission funds by Secretary J. B. 
Cranfill. Almost immediately the friends of Cranfill urged him 
to bring suit; "for if he failed," they urged, "it was tantamount 
to a confession." That was true, and Cranfill could not resist 
the plea. But, knowing the truth of the statements, he would 
never have brought suit but for the saying then in vogue, that 
"the truer the statement the worse the libel." It was supposed 
then that the Defendant in a libel suit would not be permitted 
to plead Truth as a defense. Some newspapers had published 
the truth not privileged, and had been "overruled." One of De- 
fendant Cranfill's friends, a lawyer, had urged before me this 
fact as a ground for my retraction of the charge of embezzle- 



30 THE COMPLETE 

ment before Cranfill brought his six suits. Thereupon Cranfill 
instituted the six suits above mentioned, and announced that he 
would "bring suit in every county in the State where The Texas 
Baptist Herald circulated.' This the libel law of Texas permit- 
ted him to do. But when these cases came up for trial, Cranfill's 
lawyers asked for a continuance. S. A. Hayden urged the Court 
in the name of justice to grant at once a trial. The Court 
granted it. Defendant Hayden pleaded the Truth of the charge 
of Embezzlement against Cranfill as a justification! After ten 
days trial, Judge Foree charged the jury that if they believed De- 
fendant Hayden in his publication told the Truth,* they would 
acquit him; otherwise, they would convict him. The jury re- 
tired, and within five minutes agreed to a verdict of acquittal. 

The Suit for Malicious Prosecution. 

10. Then S. A. Hayden instituted suit against J. B. Cran- 
fill, asking $25,000 damages for Cranfiill's "Malicious Prosecu- 
tion" of him in the case just tried. There is nothing more 
beautiful than the laws of justice righteously administered by an 
incorruptible court. For every wrong action at law there is in 
Texas provided a legal remedy. To maintain an action for "Ma- 
licious Prosecution" only two things are necessary to be proven: 
First, "Malice;" second, "Lack of Probable Cause." If the Em- 
bezzlement did occur as alleged, of course J. B. Cranfill knew it, 
and therefore he did not have any "Probable Cause" for prose- 
cuting S. A. Hayden. He knew S. A. Hayden had published the 
Truth! As to the other factor, "Malice," the proof was ample. 
Now, as J. B. Cranfill had instituted six prosecutions against S. 
A. Hayden, for every case there was cross-action available against 
Cranfill for "Malicious Prosecution." That gave S. A*, six cases 
against J. B. Cranfill. He immediately entered one. 

A citizen cannot go into the Court House, swear out "Infor- 
mation" against another citizen through "Malice," and thus with- 
out "Probable Cause" (as Cranfill by his Confession of Judgment 
acknowledged he did), put the prosecuted citizen to shame in a 
criminal court trial, expense of attorneys' fees, etc., and then 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL . 31 

go "scot free!" The law protects every citizen against such 
"Malicious Prosecution," lest it become persecution. 

The application of this law to Cranfill's "Malicious Prosecu- 
tions" produced sensational results. S. A. Hayden brought suit 
against him for $25,000 damages in the first case, in which he 
(Hayden) had already been acquitted on the Truth of his charge. 
Cranfill hastened to dismiss all the other five suits! ! This "Ma- 
licious Prosecution" suit was one of the three suits on which the 
Confession of Judgment was made, on which Defendant Cranfill 
paid $5,000 cash and costs. 

11. The Waco Conspiracy Case of 1898, the eleventh in the 
series, instituted 1899, was exactly analogous to the San Antonio 
Conspiracy Case of 1897, and was for $100,000. I say analogous 
because the proceedings were practically identical, the only dif- 
ference being that the prosecutor at San Antonio, Defendant W 
H. Jenkins, was a man of strict abstinence from the use of alco 
holic liquors; while the prosecutor at Waco, Defendant J. M 
Robertson, a man of kindly nature, was grateful to the Defend 

ants because from his unfortunate addiction to liquor he had 
been shielded by Defendants. But for his addiction to the excessive 
use of alcoholic liquors, he could never have been induced to 
take such desperate steps as he did. Addicted to strong drink, 
as now admitted by all, denied by Defendant Gambrell who had 
often witnessed his "prostrations," he prepared and read the 
Challenge at Waco in 1898. 

Whiie Defendant Robertson was put forward by Defendants, 
it is due to him to say that he is not of a malicious disposition. 
But no man is at himself who drinks liquor. He was a strong 
advocate of Reform up to the meeting of the Houston Conven- 
tion in 1896, and carried to that meeting a set of Reform Reso- 
lutions which he proposed to offer. But he aid not offer them 
because, he stated, "B. H. Carroll told him that he wanted him 
ior Secretary in Early's place," and "therefore he withheld the 
resolutions that he might not be the Secretary of either faction." 
Failing to secure the Secretaryship, which was given to Defend- 
ant J. B. Gambrell, Defendant Robertson, who had been a law- 



32 .. THE COMPLETE 

yer, was the first to inform me that Defendant Gambrell was 
receiving "$700.00 on the side, which" Defendant Robertson said, 
"would subject to criminal prosecution a public official." But 
a position was obtained for Defendant Robertson with Secretary 
A. J. Rowland of the American Baptist Publication Society, Phil- 
adelphia. Dr. Rowland withdrew his advertising patronage from 
The Texas Baptist Herald, as also did Secretary J. M. Frost of 
the Sunday School Series of the Southern Baptist Convention; 
and Defendant Robertson was promoted. 

These are the eleven lawsuits resulting from the conduct 
of Defendants, seven of which they instituted, and eleven of 
which they lost. 

The denomination would not fully understand the nature of 
this Conspiracy without a fuller account of the Cranfill embez- 
zlement cases. After Drs. R. C. Burleson, H. B. Pender, S. J. 
Anderson and S. A. Hayden on the Mission Board, joined by many 
others not on the Board, had for nearly four years appealed to 
the Board to protect our denominational missions and the cause 
of common honesty from the embezzlement of mission money by 
Cranfill, and from the continual endorsement and protection of 
Cranfill by the Carrolls and the other Board Party, leaders, who 
said "his reports had been audited and found correct at Belton 
(1892), Marshall (1894), Houston (1896)," although the books 
were "lost" from 1892 to 1896, and after the names of men of 
the highest standing had been published as having paid money 
to Cranfill for missions never paid into the mission fund ' by 
Cranfill — after all this, The Texas Baptist Herald, in deference 
to the general demand and in defence of the integrity of the 
cause of missions, published that Defendant J. B. Cranfill had 
embezzled the mission funds to the amount of about $10,000 
during his Secretaryship. Defendant Cranfill was Chairman of 
the Committee which fixed J. M. Carroll's salary at $2,500 and 
authorized him to employ an office force at his own discretion. 
Defendant J. M. Carroll, in return, employed Cranfill at "$125 
a month for his Sundays." That was over $30 for each Sunday. 
They were log-rolling for each other. All this was kept from 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 33 

the public with strict secrecy. This payment of mission money 
to Defendant Cranfill six months after he went out of office 
continued at intervals up to November, 1892. With difficulty 
on the trial, and only by order of the Court on demand of Plaint- 
iff S. A. Hayden, Defendant J. M. Carroll's Books were forced 
into Court, and here it was revealed that J. M. Carroll had en- 
tered on his books in three instances, "J. B. Cranfill, $125 a 
month," besides other payments, as "Commissions on Collec- 
tions!" Besides this, Defendant Carroll, it was discovered, had 
paid Cranfill over $2,500 "to pay missionaries" sworn by J. M. 
Carroll, on former trials, to be "Cranfill's missionaries," but on 
the last trial sworn by Carroll "not to be Cranfill's mission- 
aries." 

Before these disclosures were made, as they were on trial, 
Plaintiff S. A. Hayden had enough proof to warrant the publica- 
tion that Plaintiff "Cranfill had embezzled about $10,000 of mis- 
sion money." This publication was made in The Texas Baptist 
Herald of November 17, 1898. This brought on Malicious Prose- 
cution by Defendant Cranfill, as follows: 

J. B. Cranfill, unable to get the Grand Jury to bring an in- 
dictment, went before the Dallas County Attorney, R. B. Allen, 
who afterwards became his personal attorney, and swore out 
four "Informations" in Dallas County. Later, he swore out one 
"Information" in Collin County, and one in McLennan County, 
six in all. And he published the. statement, in a circular, that 
he would "prosecute S. A. Hayden in every county in Texas 
where The Texas Baptist Herald circulated, and would keep it 
up as long as he lived, and as long as the charges were pub- 
lished against him." When the trial came on, Plaintiff Cran- 
fill asked for a "Continuance." The Defendant in this case, S. 
A. Hayden, asked the Court for a speedy trial, which, as related 
elsewhere, was granted. S. A. Hayden pleaded in defence the 
Truth of his allegations; and the jury acquitted him. 

To Baptists and to all who knew, it looked like morality was 
going into bankruptcy. But Home was my City of Refuge, and 
God, Wife, and Children were there. 



34 THE COIPLE T E 

There's the poison of the rattle, there's Conspiracy and battle 

Of the Combine, but the prattle of the little ones at night 
Gives a father's heart a feeling that no furnace heat's annealing, 

Every corner dark revealing, can begin to put to flight. 
Whether life brings more of misses than it does of hits, the kisses 

Of the babies fraught with blisses 
That the childless may not know; 

Oh, the "sweating" and the "toiling" — oh, the 
Tattling and the toiling — 

Are forgotten in the coiling baby arms that love you so. 

When life's leaves are curling, curling, all the herbage and the 
furling 
Of the fondest hopes are hurling all your hopes down to the 
ground, 
And you go home lone and dreary, grimy from your toil and weary, 
You half feel there's nothing cheery left and Fate has sadly 
frowned; 
Then the brown-eyed lasses flying down the hill to meet you, 
crying: 
. "Father, here's your dirlies!" trying hard to meet you far away 
From the door so that the riding up the hill your joy betiding 

May be farther and more abiding, what's the matter with life, 
say? 

What do men and millions matter when wee feet run patter, 
patter, 
And excited baby clatter meets you way adown the road? 
When the baby love, uplifting all your soul, you see the rifting 
Of the clouds, and drifting, drifting from your heartache goes 
your load? 
Are you thinking of surrender? Would you sometimes like to 
tender 
Your soul back to God, its sender, giving up the splendid fight? 
No indeed! you know you'd never! know you'd like to fight forever, 
Fight them all with glad endeavor for the kiss you get at 
night! 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 35 

CHAPTER IV. 

PLAINTIFF'S PETITION, 

The State of Texas. County of Dallas, in District Court of 

Dallas County. 

S. A. Hayden, 

vs. No. 17121. 

J. B. Cranfill et al. 

To the Honorable Court: 

S. A. Hayden, who is hereinafter styled Plaintiff, and who 
is a resident citizen of Dallas County, Texas, complains of J. B. 
Cranfill, J. B. Gambrell, J. M. Robertson, Dudley G. Wooten, 
Geo. W. Truett, C. C. Slaughter, T. J. Walne, J. B. Riddle each 
and all of whom are resident citizens of Dallas County, Texas, 
and L. M. Mays, who is a resident citizen of Travis County, Texas, 
and B. H. Carroll, Sr., W. H. Jenkins, J. M. Carroll, L. R. Millican, 
each and all of whom are resident citizens of McLennan County, 
Texas, and W. R. Maxwell a resident citizen of Bell County, 
Texas, and Fred W. Freeman, a resident citizen of Navarro County, 
Texas, and R. T. Hanks, a resident citizen of Taylor County, 
Texas, and J. C. Burkett, a resident citizen of Robertson County, 
Texas, Bennett Hatcher, a resident citizen of Ellis County, I. B. 
Kimbrough, a resident of Clay County, R. A. Lee, a resident of 
Childress County, G. W. Baines, a resident of Johnson County, 
A. E. Baten, a resident of Brown County, J. C. Gentry, a resident 
of Caldwell County, and others whom this plaintiff can not now 
name, and who are not here sued, each of above named persons 
consist of. and who are hereinafter styled the Defendants, and 
for his cause of action, the Plaintiff shows to the Court the 
following: 

I. 

That he is now, and for many years has been a resident of 
Texas, enjoying the respect, consideration and confidence of the 
public, as a worthy and honorable citizen. 

II. 

That he is now, and for many years has been a minister of the 
Gospel, regularly ordained by the Baptist Church, and received 
as such by the denomination, devoting his talent, time, means 
and labors, as such, to the Baptist denomination in Texas. 

That as a minister of the Gospel by strict loyalty to the 
principles, polity and faith of the Baptists, and by devoted and 
earnest consecration to their work, interests and welfare, Plain- 
tiff acquired and enjoyed large influence with the Baptists of 
Texas, as being among the principal originators, promoters and 
successful organizers of its great consolidated institutions, unified 
general bodies and organized mission work. 

III. 

That by the solicitation and request of friends and members of 
the Baptist denomination aforesaid, on or about the 1st day of 
June, 1883, Plaintiff was induced to and did buy, and assume 
the publication of one of the leading Baptist religious papers 
in the State of Texas, to-wit: "The Texas Baptist," then 
located and published in the city of Dallas, Texas, which was, 
afterwards, by the earnest solicitation and request of Plaintiff's 
friends and brethren in the denomination aforesaid, and by their 
active co-operation and approval, including many of the Defend- 
ants, consolidated with the then only other prominent religious 
Baptist paper in Texas, to-wit: the "Texas Baptist Herald." 

That to accomplish said consolidation, Plaintiff bought, at great 
expense, and organized the said two papers into "The Texas 
Baptist and Herald," which by vote of the Baptist General Conven- 
tion of Texas, was located at Dallas, Texas. That since said 
consolidation, Plaintiff has owned, published and maintained said 
religious paper, devoting his time, talents, attention, labors and 



36 THE COMPLETE 

influence, and expended large sums of money to the extent of 
about $20,000.00 in its maintenance, publication and circulation. 

That at the time of, and long before the commission by the 
Defendants in Dallas County and other places, of the wrongs, 
injuries and cruelties hereinafter complained of against the De- 
fendants, Plaintiff had established a very profitable and valuable 
business to himself and a very useful and influential newspaper 
for the Baptists of Texas. 

That, having paid large sums of money on the indebtedness 
necessarily incurred in the purchase, establishing and maintenance 
of said The Texas Baptist and Herald, said business was well 
calculated to and would have fully paid off, by its legitimate and 
safe profits and earnings, all of said indebtedness and yielded 
to Plaintiff great profits, approximating an annual net profit 
of $5,000.00. 

That the advertising income of said paper annually was ap- 
proximately $9,500.00, and it had become and was one of the most 
popular papers in the State as an advertising medium. 

That the paying subscription list, exclusive of ministers, ex- 
changes, advertisers, etc., amounted to more than 10,000 sub- 
scribers at $2.00 each per annum, aggregating an annual gross 
income therefrom of $20,000.00, thus aggregating and making a 
total annual income from said business, advertising and sub- 
scriptions, of $29,500.00. 

That its patronage in advertising and subscriptions was steadily 
growing and increasing each year, and month, and day by day, 
and had in fact then become a very profitable business. 

That if Plaintiff had not been deprived of the right lawfully 
and peacefully to pursue the same without molestation and hin- 
drance, as hereinafter alleged against Defendants, he. could and 
would have paid off the indebtedness he owed and still owes, 
and could and would now have been in easy financial circumstances. 

IV. 

Plaintiff shows that in September, 1897, the Oak Cliff Baptist 
Church in the city of Dallas, of which Plaintiff was a member, 
was one of the churches composing the Dallas County Baptist 
Association, and said Oak Cliff Baptist Church regularly elected 
plaintiff as a messenger to said Association, to convene at Grand 
Prairie, Texas, on or about the 23rd day of September, 1897. 

That the Dallas County Baptist Association was a loyal and 
active constituent body, composing the Baptist General Conven- 
tion of Texas. „. , ,.„ 

That as such it duly elected and accredited Plaintiff as one of 
its messengers to said Baptist General Convention, at San An- 
tonio Texas, under which the Constitution entitled Plaintiff to 
a seat in the Convention and equal participation in the delibera- 
tions and work of the body. 

V. 

That at that time and long prior thereto, there had been dis- 
sensions and strife among the Baptists of Texas over the methods, 
plans, policies and disbursement of funds by the Board of Di- 
rectors of the Baptist General Convention. 

That the Defendants aligned themselves with the Board of 
Directors, hereinafter designated the "Board Party," and advo- 
cated, through the Texas Baptist Standard, and Missionary Mes- 
senger, perpetuating its methods, plans and policies through the 
indorsement of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. 

That Plaintiff, with a large following in the denomination, 
hereinafter designated the "Church Party," opposed, through The 
Texas Baptist and Herald, and through Churches and Associations, 
said methods, plans and policies, on lines of "Retrenchment and 
Reform." 

A prolonged, angry and unseemly feud ensued, degenerating 
into personal crimination and recrimination. 

Appeal was taken to the Baptist General Convention of Texas 
by the "Board Party," and to the Churches and Associations by 
the Hayden or "Church Party." 

That, with the "Board Party," including Defendants, desirous 
of having their methods, plans and policies endorsed by th« 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 3? 

Convention and denomination, and to perpetuate the domination 
of the Board Party over it in the future, it became and was their 
policy, without regard to Baptist Church polity or precedent, 
parliamentary law or the Constitution of the Convention, to cap- 
ture the Convention at San Antonio by su..cient numerical 
strength to organize it in their interests and to control its action 
by the dominant majority in furtherance of their aims, to over- 
throw the Church Party and to ruin and destroy this Plaintiff's 
influence, who was and has been, through his paper, the earnest 
advocate of the rights, independence, power and authority of the 
local Churches, in determining the methods and expenditures of 
the Baptist General Convention of Texas, and who had vigorously 
opposed the methods and extravagances of the Board Party, as 
well as the assumption of the Board Party, which affirmed that 
"the Convention was as sovereign in its sphere as the local 
Churches were in their spheres," and had declared that over the 
Convention and its methods, "the local Churches had no control," 
and no right to question its methods or the character and extent 
of its expenditures. 

That to further this design it became their purpose having thus 
organized the Convention, to formulate charges against and chal- 
lenge S. A. Hayden "at the door and keep him out" of the Con- 
vention, appoint his principal supporters, in minority, on the Com- 
mittee to report on the challenge, thus taking them from the 
floor until their (the Board Party's) methods, plans and policies 
were indorsed, and thus colorably using the forms of the Con- 
vention to cover their malice, claiming it as the final will of 
the Convention, to "crush Hayden" as an "incorrigible" opposer 
and destroyer of its work, boycott and destroy The Texas Baptist 
and Herald, the nucleus of his supporters, demoralize and scatter 
his forces, and perpetuate their own domination, and build up The 
Texas Baptist Standard, owned published and controlled by them, 
cr some of them. 

VI. 

That pursuant thereto each and all of said Defendants, and 
others to Plaintiff unknown, on or about the 8th day of October, 
1896, and at divers times before and thereafter, and until the 
filing of this petition, with malicious intent, and with personal 
spite, ill-will and hatred towards Plaintiff, and with reckless dis- 
regard of Plaintiff's rights, did combine, confederate and con- 
spire with one another, and thereby did enter into a conspiracy, 
secretly to institigate and did so instigate a systematic series of 
false, slanderous and libelous circulations, objections and charges 
as hereinafter shown of and concerning this Plaintiff and of 
and concerning his newspaper and its policies, his business, his 
doctrinal Church views and denominational policies, with the view 
and specific intent to injure Plaintiff in his moral, religious and 
social standing and to bring him into contempt before the com- 
munity at large, the Baptist denomination and the religious world; 
and to break down and to destroy Plaintiff's business and there- 
by build up other newspapers owned, published and controlled by 
the Defendant's, or some of them, to further their own designs, 
policies and property interests sought to be maintained in common 
by Defendants; and in furtherance of this common purpose and 
design . with the same specific malicious intent and reckless dis- 
regard of Plaintiff's rights, the said Defendants did seek to in- 
duce, and have thereby induced divers persons to stop their sub- 
scription and their advertising patronage theretofore given to 
Plaintiff's said paper — all to this Plaintiff's great damage. 

VII. 

And the said Defendants, acting together in confederation with 
one another, and in pursuance of their formed conspiracy afore- 
said, blinded by passion, prejudice and partisan zeal; and with 
malice, hatred, personal spite and ill-will toward Plaintiff, and for 
the malicious purposes and designs aforesaid and without justi- 
fiable or even probable cause, met at the Baptist General Conven- 
tion of Texas, on or about the 4th day of November, 1897, at 
San Antonio, Texas, and then and there in secret design and 
wilful and malicious intent as aforesaid, made, uttered, indicted 
and published, and have since sold and circulated in and through 



38 THE COMPLETE 

Dallas County, Texas, and other places, the false, slanderous 
and libellous charges, epithets and defamations of and concerning 
this Plaintiff, as is fully shown and set out in haec verba in the 
following, to-wit: 

The Challenge. 

A Challenge to the right of S. A. Hayden to a seat in the 

Convention. 

-The undersigned recognizing that this Convention is the sole 
and rightful judge of its own membership and disclaiming any 
right or desire to interfere with the Church relations of S. A. 
Hayden, and yet claiming that this Convention has the right to 
be the judge of its own membership, do now and here enter our 
formal challenge against S- A. Huyaen before being allowed mem- 
bership in this body and for the following reasons: 

First: He has violated the spirit and letter of the Constitution 
of this body, which says: 'The object of this Convention shall 
be missionary and educational, tne promotion of harmuny of 
feeling and concert of action among Baptists and a system of 
operative measures for the promotion of the interests of the 
Redeemer's Kingdom." This fundamental law he has violated 
by a ceaseless and hurtful war upon the plans, policies, work 
and workers of this oCnvention, thus misusing his privilege as 
a member, and instead of harmony, producing discord, contention, 
strife and animosities, which has resulted in serious and permanent 
injury to the work undertaken by the Convention, and which has 
rendered him utterly unworthy of membership in this Convention. 

Second: He is and has been in open and notorious opposition 
tc the Convention and its mandates. 

First: (a) A strong resolution of censure and condemnation of 
his course in attacking the Board of Directors of the Convention 
was passed at Houston, and. the mandate was "that he desist 
from such attacks in the future." This mandate he has held in 
utter contempt and refused to obey. He has violated it by open 
and notorious attacks upon the Superintendent of Missions of 
this body, upon its Board of Directors and upon the plans of 
work adopted by this Convention. 

Second: (b) Because of his ceaseless attacks on the previous 
Secretary of this Convention for the shears 1891 and 1892, whose 
report had been audited by the Board, and further passed upon by 
the Convention and found correct and was again passed upon by 
this body at Marshall and found correct. Because he still attacked 
the integrity of said report, this body did again at Houston review 
said report and found it correct and did by resolution state that 
"further agitation of this matter would show a distrust and an 
evil motive, which would be dishonorable in the agitator." Against 
this action he did not speak or vote at the time. He has, since 
said Convention, viciously attacked said Convention and the char- 
acter of said Secretary and the action of this body thereon, and haa 
by so doing convicted himself of dishonorable conduct. 

Third: Because he will not abide by and support the findings 
and decisions of this Convention, its plans and policies for organ- 
ized and operative work and has announced that he will not in 
future abide by its decision unless they be settled his way. 

Fourth: He is unworthy of a seat in this Convention on moral 
grounds. He has assailed the public and private character of the 
Superintendent of Missions and the Board of Directors by falsely 
accusing them of dishonorable practices in the misuse of mission 
money. He has falsely accused them of conspiracy among them- 
selves, and with other brethren and Churches, City Councils and 
others to thwart the will of the Baptists of Texas. He is a 
breeder of strife, dissention and contention among the brethren 
and Associations. 

Fifth That said course of conduct has been pursued by him 
to such a length of time and with such continuous and persistent 
malice and traduction toward the Convention, its officers, Boards 
and objects, and in spite of repeated admonitions and mandates 
of the Convention, as to convict said Hayden as being an incorri- 
gible foe to the whole organization and work of the Convention 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 39 

and to render his connection with it a standing menace to the 
life of the whole body, and to the cause of religion, morality and 
education as represented by it. We therefore challenge h;s right 
to membership in the Convention and ask that the Convention re- 
fuse him a seat as one of its members. 

L. M. MAYS, 
Messenger from Austin Association. 

Report of Conjmlttee on Case of S. A. Hayden. 

It is the sense of this committee that the complaints and 
challenge against S. A. Hayden are well founded, and we recom- 
mend that he be not allowed a seat in this Convention. 

GEO. W. BAINES, Chairman, 
J. C. GENTRY, 
J. C. BURKETT, 
R. A. LEE, 
I. B. KIMBROUGH, 
L. R. MILLICAN, 
BENNETT HATCHER. 
VIII. 
That in pursuance of said unlawful, malicious and common de- 
sign, said Defendants, seeking to complete the full accomplish- 
ment of their conspiracy against this Plaintiff, formulated said 
challenge charges, epithets and defamatory words as heretofore 
set out, in secret, preliminary, exparte caucus, and undertook to, 
and did offer same, colorably and pretendedly as a challenge 
against Plaintiff's right and eligibility to a seat in said Baptist 
General Convention of Texas at San Antonio, aforesaid, before 
Committee on Credentials, but really in fact to arraign, try, 
condemn and defame Plaintiff by ejecting him, regardless of cre- 
dentials. 

That said Defendants, pursuant to said conspiracy presented 
and published said libellous challenge and charges to and before 
said Committee on Credentials, by themselves designated, and 
appointed to report on the same and the said committee did 
without authority from the By-Laws or Constitution of said Con- 
vention, undertake to hear, try and deliverance make on said 
charges, and in so doing denied Plaintiff notice of the evidence 
against him, and to be heard in his defense; and in pursuance 
of said common design, and in the same malicious spirit and 
intent as aforesaid read libellous matter before that great public 
assembly, to-wit: the Baptist General Convention aforesaid, and 
the large promiscuous audience there assembled. Said Defendants 
offered said libelous matter to said Convention as grounds upon 
which to expel or reject this Plaintiff from said body, making 
such proceeding a pretense for covering up intended scandal 
falsely and colorably and in pursuance of said unlawful, malicious 
and preconcerted design, formulated and prearranged in secret 
preliminary, exparte caucus, as aforesaid; and to complete their 
work of conspiracy, in the destruction of this Plaintiff, his cn<*r- 
acter, influence and property, and to bring him into contempt, 
and to influence a sufficient number of said Convention to expel 
or reject this Plaintiff, said Defendants, by agreement, had ap- 
pointed one of their own selection to make, and who did make, 
before said Convention and assemblage, a bitter, scandalous and 
denunciatory speech, appealing to passion, prejudice and partisan 
animosities, with false assertions, and libelous charges against 
this Plaintiff, (having closed hjs mouth on the floor of the Con- 
vention), and without liberty of reply, by himself, counsel or 
friend, or other member, and without the liberty of refutation, 
explanation or denial by that means induced said Convention, 
many of whom being ignorant of said conspiracy, to perpetrate 
this great wrong of denying Plaintiff a seat in the Convention, 
against the law of the land, against the lav/ of the Convention, 
as provided in its Constitution, against its adopted 'Manual of 
Parliamentary Practice,' and the established polity and universal 
usage among Baptists, as practiced, cherished and preserved in 
the written and unwritten law of the denomination. 

That this Plaintiff was regularly elected by the Dallas County 
Baptist Association (an association of Baptist Churches, a loyal 
and active constituent of said Convention, and was duly accredit- 



40 THE COMPLETE 

ed by credentials in writing to a seat in said Convention as a 
messenger from Dallas County Baptist Association. Plaintiff pre- 
sented said credentials to said Convention, which under the 
Constitution, entitled him to a seat in said Convention, and to 
full and equal participation in the deliberations and work of the 
body. 

That at the same time and place, the Dallas County Baptist 
Association being- entitled, under the Constitution of the Con- 
vention, to five messengers, elected four others, besides Plaintiff, 
to-wit: Milton Park, R. C. Buckner, A. B. Miller and G. R. 
Scott as her messengers to the said Baptist General Convention, 
and as alternates, L. R. Scruggs, T. C. Boykin, C. C Huffhines, 
G. A. Spivey and A. H. Smith, none of whom, though elected 
from the same constituent body, at the same election, and on 
precisely the same credentials, were denied their seats. 

Plaintiff, alone, was singled out for sacrifice upon the altar 
of their cruel, reckless and malicious designs, by invoking the 
assumption of unconstitutional and unlawful power of the Con- 
vention, whose only power over credentials was limited by its 
Constitution, to the character of the constituent body whence 
the messenger comes; in violation of the sovereignty of the 
Churches; and a crime against the person, character, property 
and personal right of Plaintiff. 

That by reason of said libelous and defamatory challenge and 
charges aforesaid; and said bitter, denunciatory and slanderous 
harangue, so made as aforesaid, Plaintiff was unlawfully re- 
jected and denied by them his seat in said Convention, to his great 
humiliation, anguish of mind, loss of reputation and property, to 
his great damage. 

IX. 

That the Baptist General Convention of Texas is a regularly 
organized body of Baptists, and has its duly adopted Consti- 
tution, as its organic law, which provides as follows: 

By Art. 1, Sec. 2, it is provided, that: 

"The object of this Convention shall be missionary and educa- 
tional, the promotion of harmony of feeling and concert of action 
among Baptists, and a system of operative measures for the pro- 
motion of the interests of the Redeemer's Kingdom; but no indi- 
vidual enterprise shall be formally entertained or acted upon by 
this body." 

By Art. 2, Sec. 1, it is provided: 

"This body shall be composed of messengers from regular 
Baptist Churches, and Associations of Baptist Churches, and Bap- 
tist Missionary Societies co-operating with the Convention." 

By Art. 2, Sec. 2, it is provided: 

"Each church shall be entitled to two messengers and one 
additional messenger for each $25.00 contributed to the funds of 
the Convention, and in no case shall any one Church be entitled 
to more than eight messengers." 

By Art. 2, Sec. 3, it is provided: 

"Each Association shall be allowed two messengers and one 
additional for each $100.00 expended in missionary work done 
within its own bounds and one additional for every $100.00 con- 
tributed to the funds of this Convention. Provided, in no case 
shall any one Association be entitled to more than five messen- 
gers." 

By Art. 3, Sec. 2, it is provided: 

"The Convention does not have, and shall never attempt to 
exercise a single attribute of power or authority over any Church, 
but it cheerfully recognizes the absolute sovereignty of the 
Churches." 

Plaintiff shows that it is an unvarying and universal rule 
in Baptist polity, that jurisdiction over disciplinary power for 
immoral ocnduct and character of Baptists, is reserved, exclusively, 
within the absolute sovereignty of the Church to which his mem- 
bership belongs and any interference therewith would be an in- 
vasion of Church Sovereignty, which by Constitutional guarantee, 
is prohibited to the Convention. 

X. 

Plaintiff shows that said Defendants wilfully and maliciously 
libeled this Plaintiff, by inducing the Convention to expel him 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 41 

unlawfully, by denying him a seat in the Convention, in this: 

1. The Convention had no power, under its Constitution, to 
expel a messenger duly accredited as a messenger from a regular 
Baptist Church, or Association of Baptist Churches, or to deny 
him his seat in the Convention. 

2 Said Convention is expressly denied, by its Constitution, 
the right to exercise a single attribute of power, or outhority, 
over any Church, and is, and was, bound to recognize the rights 
of a messenger duly accredited by a regular sovereign Baptist 
Church or Association of Baptist Churches, and to seat the mes- 
senger, of their own selection, duly accredited as such. 

3. It denied to the Dallas County Association its right to 
five messengers, guaranteed in the Constitution, by excluding one 
of them. 

4. It invaded the absolute sovereignty of the Churches by 
attempting to exercise disciplinary powers over the alleged im- 
moral conduit an, i cli uvi ui ni a meinbei of one oi its constituent 
Churches duly accredited by it. 

5. It undertook to entertain, and carry out, the individual en- 
terprice of L. M. Mays,- and the Defendants, his confederates, 
in their attempt to unseat humiliate, disgrace and bring into con- 
tempt this Plaintiff; to ruin and destroy his property and business; 
and to build up and enhance their own influence, policies and 
property, against the express prohibition of its Constitution. 

XI. 

Plaintiff shows further that it was, in part, the common pur- 
pose and design of said Defendants to break down and destroy 
the influence of The Texas Baptist and Herald in order to build 
up the Texas Baptist Standard, a newspaper now published in 
Dallas, Texas. That the said paper was then owned, controlled, 
managed and published by some of the Defendants, who were 
interested pecuniarily therein, to-wit: J. B. Cranfill, C. C. Slaugh- 
ter, Dudley G. Wooten, B. H. Carroll, Sr., and others unknown 
to Plaintiff. 

That said Defendants or some of them, were engaged in the 
publication and management of said paper, and that others of the 
Defendants knowingly and maliciously conspired and confederated 
with them, the said owners and publishers of the Texas Baptist 
Standard, in their common design, and with malice, personal spite 
and ill feeling, as above alleged, to break down and destroy 
Plaintiff's business and newspaper, for the upbuilding, advance- 
ment and interest of the Defendant's paper as aforesaid, by means 
of the utterance, publication and circulation of the libel afore- 
said, and of the unlawful, wrongful and malicious conduct afore- 
said. 

XII. 

Plaintiff further shows that said libelous matter of and concern- 
ing Plaintiff, hereinbefore shown, was afterwards published by 
Defendant J. B. Cranfill, in pursuance of the common purpose of 
Defendants, and with the specific intent, before alleged, in the 
Texas Baptist Standard, a newspaper at that ' time, to-wit: on 
or about November 11, 1897, published in the city of Waco, Texas, 
as part of the proceedings of the Baptist General Convention of 
Texas; but the said publication was defamatory and libelous, 
and was not a fair, just and full report of all that occurred, 
which would have affected public belief as to the guilt or inno- 
cence of Plaintiff of the charges made against him, but wholly 
omitted to publish Plaintiff s Reply denying jurisdiction in the 
Committee, and in the Convention, over the subject matter and 
of the person of Plaintiff; and wholly omitted to publish the 
minority report signed by Revs. Drs. Parks, Anderson and Roberts, 
which showed fact3 conclusively in Plaintiff's favor, as follows, 
to-wit: 

Minority Report on S. A. Hayden. 

To Rev. R. C. Buckner, President General Baptist Convention 
of Texas: 

We, your committee on challenges, beg leave to submit the fol- 
lowing minority report on the case of S. A. Hayden, as follows, 
to-wit: 

1. We find that all of the charges are such as are wholly 



42 THE COMPLETE 

under the jurisdiction of the Church to which he belongs, and that 
this Convention by its Constitution is barred from their con- 
sideration. 

2. We find that this Convention is an incorporated institu- 
tion, in which each Church or Association has all the rights of 
every other Church or Association belonging to the body and 
is protected in its legal right to representation by messengers 
selected by itself and cannot be denied this representation, unless 
for cause disqualifying the body from which they come. 

3. We find that all the evidence submitted against S. A. 
Hayden was a file of The Texas Baptist and Herald and copies of 
the Minutes of the Convention, and not read, although S. A. 
Hayden respectfully asked to be shown such portions thereof 
as they relied on for proof, yet the same was persistently denied 
him and he was thus compelled to present his evidence without 
knowing what the evidence against him was. 

4. Therefore we recommend that the charges be dismissed 
on account of the foregoing and the evidence set forth in S. A. 
Hayden's answer, which is attached thereto and made a part of 
this report. 

Respectfully submitted, 
S. J. ANDERSON, 
J. H. ROBERTS, 
W. H. PARKS. 

The Reply of S. A. Hayden, which was a part of the proceed- 
ings before the committee and attached to and made part of 
the minority report aforesaid, which would have affected the 
belief of the public as to the guilt or innocence of S. A. Hayden 
of the charges against him, was as follows, to-wit: 

My Reply. 

To the Baptist General Convention, G. W. Baines, Chairman of 
Committee on Credentials: 

What purports to be a copy of the challenge to my eligibility 
to a seat in this Convention as a messenger from the Dallas 
County Baptist Association in co-operation with the Convention 
was handed me on Saturday, the second day of this session 
at 4:30 o'clock p. m. 

With fraternal consideration for the views of my brethren, 
and with due regard for the rights of this Convention within 
its appropriate and rightful exercise, and disclaiming all spirit 
and intent of disregard towards its legitimate work, on the 
contrary, reaffirming my profound and prayerful solicitude for 'ts 
prosperity; yet individual responsibility to the Lord Jesus, to 
my own conscience and to Christian manhood, compels me in 
candor, but kindness, to deny the jurisdiction of yourselves as 
a committee and of the Convention, whose sole purpose is educa- 
tional and missionary, founded in the voluntary principle, funda- 
mental in Baptist polity to entertain, to try or judge this cause 
for absolute want of jurisdiction, under the New Testament code, 
Baptist polity, and the Constitution and Charter of this Conven- 
tion. As my first plea therefore I invoke the calm judgment of 
this committee and of the' Cdnvention, assured by my unshaken 
confidence in my brethren in Christ, that deep down in the great 
Baptist regenerate heart, behind and beneath the ebullitions of 
excitement and passion there underlie that universal love of truth 
and tender regard for conscience and individual freedom within 
its rightful domain, that will challenge and control prayerful, 
candid, conscientious consideration of the statements made herein. 
I submit that this procedure is subject to the following objections, 
to-wit: 

1st. It is. in violation of and in rresumptuous insubordination 
to the New Testament code as laid down in xviiii Matthew, 
which reposes in, limits and confines, the jurisdiction over its 
every charge, worthy of consideration as such, to the local Church 
of which I am a member. 

2d. It is in violation of Baptist polity, with the unbroken 
chain of Baptist usage with the single exception of the Houston 



CONSPIRAOT TRIAL 43 

episode, which has been condemned by the overwhelming senti- 
ment of the Baptist denomination. It is believed that no prece- 
dent can be cited where a Baptist Convention, founded in the 
voluntary principle of co-operation, has ever assumed to charge, 
arraign and try for expulsion one of the messengers duly ac- 
credited from one of its constituent members. 

Nor has ever crimsoned the page of Baptist history such prose- 
cution for the assertion and exercise of the God-given right 
of freedom of thought and speech guaranteed in this land of 
liberty by the Constitution and laws of the land. 

Pope, Bishop, military or political tyrant may muzzle and 
fetter down the inalienable right of man and defy with impunity 
the execration of the liberty-loving world, but should a com- 
paratively few of the Baptists of Texas, assembled as far from 
the center of Baptist population and influence as possible from the 
place appointed by the Convention, beneath the very shadow of 
the Alamo, the birthplace of her freedom, the mausoleum of her 
liberty-loving, martyr heroes, the shrine and Mecca of her future 
hope, erect a lordly Board into a consecrated tribunal, whose 
"plans, policies, work and workers" are to be above criticism, 
and though these plans were formulated by them as our agents — 
servants, in our business, which we have committed to them as 
a sacred trust — however widely opposed to our views and wishes, 
however extravagant, wasteful and destructive of our interest, 
we dare not oppose. And if no individual can — the Convention 
being composed of individuals, the Board are practically supreme 
and infallible. And here is the monstrous proposition that this 
supremacy and infallibility are to be enforced and perpetuated 
by the sacrifice of human liberty, the muzzling of the press and 
freedom of speech by tongue or pen, the attempted ruin of indi- 
vidual enterprise and fortune and with expulsion from the Bap- 
tist Convention. 

And 'for what? A charge signed by an unwitting old man, 
a member of the Board, who claims to be the injured party, 
living 200 miles from Dallas, my home and my Church and my 
Association, whose first complaint is that I exercised my inalien- 
able right to study the interest of my Master's cause, and had 
the manhood to battle for my conceptions of right. 1 deny and 
repel the charge that I waged war on the work of the Con- 
vention. I challenge comparison with any man or paper (for 
that is the source and ultimate object of this challenge) to show 
one line, word or syllable in The Texas Baptist and Herald that 
ever antagonized the work of the Convention. 

I fully admit that with all the strength and energy and facili- 
ties within my command I have opposed the extravagant policies, 
unbaptistic work and questionable methods of the Board, which 
of themselves resulted in serious injury to the work of the Con- 
vention, and not my opposition, which, if it has resulted in injury 
to anything, it could but be to that extravagant work of the 
Board, in the way of reform. And thus far I claim it as the 
crowning effort of my life in the service of the denomination. 
I deny and repel the charge that my opposition has injured the 
work of the Convention; but honestly believe that but for the 
impetus given by it with that of the multitude of brethren all 
over the State who united with me this Convention would have 
met, straddled with the incubus of appalling debt, as the fruits 
and heritage of that work of the Board. 

I further insist, as the facts incontrovertably show, that every 
attempt at reform which I have advocated has been sanctioned by 
the Convention and the great body of Texas Baptists; and only 
to provoke renewed effort by the Board to disregard the instruc- 
tion of the Convention and the sentiment of the denomination. 
On the 9th of April, 1894, the Board was over $6,000 in debt- 
paying the Secretary $2,500 per annum; $900 for Clerk; $600 for 
Stenographer; $1 per day for occasional clerk and $20 per month 
rent in Bro. Carroll's private residence, besides other expenses. 
I. as a member of the Board, offered a Reform Paper, reducing the 
Secretary's salary to $2,100, and Clerk's salary to $600 per an- 
num within the Board and with agreement at my suggestion 
that it be not agitated outside the Board. Within 48 hours it 



44 THE COMPLETE 

got into the secular press as written to me by Mr. Senter, of 
the Fort Worth Gazette through Mr. Costello in the office of the 
Waco Telephone, published on the same press with the Texas 
Baptist Standard. 

Soon thereafter another Board meeting was called and a paper 
Issued by the Board and offered to the secular press with a 
statement by Rev. M. xJ. Early, Assistant Secretary of Missions 
and member of the Board, that "its publication would crush 
Hayden," and which the dailies refused to publish, because 
plainly libelous. Rev. A. J. Fawcett, another Board member, soon 
afterwards being expostulated with for engaging in such con- 
spiracy against Hayden, said: "Hayden ought to be crushed." 
Statement of Rev. J. H. Canon. 

Marshall, Texas, Oct. 8, 1894. 
I met Rev. M. D. Early, Assistant Secretary of Missions under 
Secretary J. M. Carroll, as he was going away from the Boai'd 
meeting at Waco about the time Dr. Hayden's Reform Paper was 
being discussed in the Board, about Julv, lSi)4. M. D. Early 
said to me: "We are going to publish the findings of the Board 
on a certain day in all the great dailies of the State and it will 
crush Hayden." I replied that "Hayden had never been crushed," 
to which he replied: "Hayden is immense." 

J. H. CASON. 

This statement of Bro. Cason was openly made in the presence 
of Bro. Early on the floor of the Convention at Marshall. 

And yet they charge me with all this agitation. The fact, 
however, is that it aroused public attention, so that at the Marshall 
Convention the debt of $6,000 was fully paid with over $1,000 
officially announced as in the treasury and the Secretary's salary 
reduced to $2,000 — $100 less than the Reform Paper proposed. 

After this reform adopted at Marshall up to the Belton Con- 
vention, 1895, there was no agitation, and I, through The Texas 
Baptist and Herald, quoted this concession to the sentiment of 
the denomination and urged renewed efforts in the advancement 
of our denominational work. From the Belton Convention to the 
Houston Convention, the Board began the multiplication of col- 
lecting agents under the name of General Missionaries, at high sal- 
aries, whose duties had been defined in the Minutes of the Conven- 
tion of 1892, p. 10, as Assistants to the Secretary, in violation of the 
Constitution, Art. 6, which says: "The Board of Directors shall 
have power to appoint an Assistant Superintendent of Missions 
to aid the Corresponding Secretary." 

With a conscientious devotion to this Convention to the con- 
summation of which I had contributed so much, with a jealous 
watchcare to prevent any movements toward disintegration on the 
one hand or centralization on the other, I called attention to 
and opposed the appointment of General Missionaries to guard 
against the very evils under which we now suffer. My well-meant 
effort was made the occasion for a furious attack upon and effort 
to break down The Texas Baptist and Herald which culminated 
in the Houston episode whose "mandate" is cited as the basis 
of this effort at persecution. 

Notwithstanding the furious onslaught made upon me person- 
ally at Houston in violation of every principle of Baptist polity 
and Christian ethics, the principle of reform, started and advo- 
cated by me and sustained by the largest contributors to mis- 
sions in Texas, resulted in a still further reduction of the Secre- 
tary's salary from $2,000 to $1,800, by the action of the Convention; 
the discontinuance of the office rent at $18 per month and removal 
of the Secretary's office to the Church free of charge. 

With the triumph of the reform movement I had retired to my 
sanctum, hoping for a solid stride forward and upward in all 
our denominational interests. Soon, however, it developed that 
while the Board had employed Rev. J. B. Gambrell, some parties 
had privately re-employed him at $700 additional salary. He was 
employed by the Board because he had announced as not then 
allied and was not at the salary fixed by the Convention, to ally 
himself with either party to our unfortunate troubles, and relying 
upon his promises of neutrality I published that I would, and 



CONSPIEAOY TRIAL ,=S 



did faithfully support him, as the files of The Texas Baptist and 
Herald will show. But soon thereafter, disregarding 1 his promises 
by insinuation, innuendo and anecdote, he did renew in the Texas 
Baptist Standard and in the Messenger, published at the expense 
of Mission funds, the ridicules and sneers at the friends of reform, 
as the files of his paper will ■'how. 

I deny the charge and cnallenge the proof that I ever made 
any attack upon Rev. J. B. Gambrell, until he had publicly and 
privately assailed his brethren repeatedly and forfeited the pledge 
under which he came to Texas. Soon after, while nominally ac- 
cepting the mandate of the Convention as to the $1,800 salary, 
the Board employed and put into the State three collecting agents 
under the name of "General Missionaries" at $1,500 apiece and 
expenses, contrary to the Constitution and in violation of the 
policy of reform adopted by the Convention, all of which, as an 
honest man and as a Baptist minister, I have opposed with all 
the energy and power I possessed, as have thousands of Baptists 
in Texas, hundreds of whom passed resolutions of condemnation 
through their Associations and Churches and now occupy seats 
in the Convention unchallenged. 

The two articles published in The Texas Baptist and Herald, 
with which I was charged at Houston by the Board, but which 
the Convention did not adopt, were openly avowed by Drs. Ander- 
son and Tynes as having been written by them, while Anderson 
and Tynes are seated without objection, showing conclusively 
that it is the person and not the offense they are after, and as 
is most apparent, to break down The Texas Baptist and Herald 
in the interest of the Texas Baptist Standard and to centralize and 
localize all the Baptist interests of the Convention in the hands 
of the Board Party at Waco. 

3d. It is in violation of the Constitution and Charter of this 
Convention. 

Article 2 of the Constitution provides that the membership 
shall be composed of "messengers from regular Baptist Churches 
and Associations of Baptist Churches and Baptist Missionary 
Societies co-operating with the Convention." 

The assertion in the charge that "the Convention is the sole and 
rightful judge of its own membership" is true only in the sense 
as declared by the report on eligibility of membership: "The right 
to determine what kind of organization may be represented and 
by how many messengers, which this Convention has, by Its Con- 
stitution, reserved to itself, carries with it the right to enquire 
whether persons seeking seats as members here come from such 
defined organizations, and to refuse them seats if they do not." 

There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the Conven- 
tion to investigate or challenge a messenger, except to determine 
the character of the body which sends him as a messenger, and 
a messenger from any regular Baptist Church, Baptist Association 
or Baptist Missionary Society co-operating with the Convention 
is by the Constitution entitled to his seat, as much as any other 
messenger. A man who is known to teach heresy, for instance, 
sent as a messenger, is ineligible because of the ineligibility of 
the organization that sent him, and the rule would exclude all 
messengers sent by it, without investigating their character ex- 
cept to ascertain the character of their Church. On the other 
hand, when the Church, Association or Society accords with the 
Constitutional requirements, the compact is satisfied and additional 
requirements would be extra of the Constitutional requisition. The 
sovereignty of the Church is neither increased or diminished 
by connection with this or any other Convention, but any attempt 
to prescribe which of her members she may select as messengers, 
and which not, is the same as prescribing to the Church which of 
her members she may retain in fellowship, and which expel. It 
is as much to say to any local Church: "You may send Bro. A., 
but not Bro. B.," while the Church prefers to send Bro. B., and 
not Bro. A. And to answer such Church that "unless you send Bro. 
B., you must not send either," would be an attempted invasion of 
her sovereignty, while the Constitution provides that "the Conven- 
tion shall never attempt to exercise any power or authority over 
a Church." Authority is the right to exercise power; power may 
be exercised without authority. The Constitution disclaims both 



±6 THE COMPLETE 



the power and the right to exercise power over u Church; Christ 
speaks for the minority of one and specially prohibits both. 

This proceeding is an attempt to exercise power while dis- 
claiming authority. It calls on the Convention to exercise a power 
and authority which it declares in its Constitution it does not. 
possess and which its Constitution declares it shall never attempt 
to exercise. 

The Baptist idea has given to the world the doctrine that 
minorities have rights. This doctrine is the idea which Christ 
gave only to regenerate humanity. In ten men, nine may be wrong 
and one right. The doctrine that among Baptists the majority 
must rule without regard to which is right and which wrong is 
the doctrine of force, in which lies a deadly error. Right minori- 
ties are not to be oppressed by wrong majorities, for Christ never 
based the right on enumeration, but on regeneration. 

I am a messenger from Dallas County Association, whose other 
messengers are seated unchallenged. The Oak Cliff Church, of 
which I am a member, accredited me to the Dallas County Associa- 
tion, and I was unchallenged by any of the thirty Churches 
composing that Association. If my Church is ineligible, my entire 
Association and the thirty Churches composing it, indirectly, are 
ineligible by reason of their endorsement of me and to reach me, 
Bro. Mays should have recommended the expulsion of the entire 
Association. Why single me out of ail those messengers, unless 
there is malice or some selfish motive behind it? 

4th. The Convention is a legally chartered corporation, in which 
every constituent Church or Association has legal, vested rights 
to representation, that the Convention itself has not power to 
disregard, without open violation of the law, and if one worthy 
messenger be ejected, by majority or unanimously, upon a charge, 
libelous and false as is this allegation of Bro. Mays, e 
participating in its consummation, subjects himself to the penal 
code of Texas. One holding regular legal credentials is entitled 
to his legal rights for protection against imposition. The Conven- 
tion must look to and rely upon the character and good faith of 
the organizations received into the Convention. Annually there 
has come into this Convention for years, messengers known to 
other messengers to be of immoral character, and yet knowing 
that the Constitution of this Convention did not authorize investi- 
gation except as to the character of the constituent body, they 
have not undertaken to ask an investigation in violation of the 
fundamental law. 

The specifications of the third, fourth and fifth charges are so 
palpably libelous and insulting to all those who endorse me in 
my posuion and course, and have done v/hat I am charged with, 
lu ?? T self " res P e ct forbids more answer than to pronounce 
u nei ?, the utterance of an unwitting old man who has been wronged 
by those who in a caucus meeting last Thursday afternoon left 
it to him to sign and present it to this Convention at the same 
time at which was appointed a committee before which it it 
was to be investigated. 

5th. Now I come to the saddest part of this paper of Bro. 
mays, namely — that which refers to the accounts of Secretary 
c ioai ? nfi1, covering his last six months' work, from October 
o, 1891 to April 2, 1392. Before I make my answer, I want to 
maKe two statements. First, Bro. Mays has been my very bitterest 
opponent and ardent supporter of Rev. J. B. Cranfill for years, 
as his private letters to me will show. This will explain his 
ready compliance with the service assigned him by the Maverick 
caucus. Second, I have never referred to his accounts in question, 
except as a member of the Board officially, or in response to 
Kev J B. Cranfili or his friends, and in defense of my official 
conduct as a member of the Board. The facts and history of 
my connection with these accounts began in 1894, when I, in con- 
nection with other members of the Board, to-wit: R. C. Burleson, 
b. J. Anderson and H. B. Pender, prepared and offered a minority 
report which reviewed the six months in question, which six 
months had been skipped in the majority report. This was at the 
Marshall Convention, 1894. ' ' 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 47 

In the Belton Convention, October, 1895, no reference was 
made to that six months' work. At the Houston Convention, 
October, 1896, a committee was appointed to investigate these 
accounts, and Rev. H. B. Pender, S. J. Anderson, R. C. Burleson 
and myself, and all others wishing: to do so, were invited 
to appear before the committee and point out any errors that might 
be based on any satisfactory documents or other competent testi- 
mony. Rev. H. B. Pender and myself went before the committee 
and offered to show the unsatisfactory nature of the accounts. 
Both of us had asked permission of J. T. Battle, Treasurer of 
the Convention, in whose custody were these accounts, to examine 
the same. He asked for instruction of the Board in Waco, as to 
whether he should show us the accounts — and the Board instructed 
J. T. Battle not to show us the accounts. 

The invitation of the committee at Houston was the first oppor- 
tunity we had ever had to examine the accounts. When we ap- 
peared before the committee, we were Informed that only vouch- 
ers, reecipts or written evidences would be received — but that the 
accounts would be published in full in the Minutes, which would 
be open to inspection of the entire denomination. This was alJ 
that either of us could ever require or had ever sought. This 
I announced in The Texas Baptist and Herald, and the matter 
went unmentioned for months, until I was called upon to make 
"public confession, retraction and apology" for the wrong I had 
done Rev. J. B. Cranfill, whose accounts, it was now claimed, had 
been published and proven to be perfectly satisfactorv. To this de- 
mand every sense of honor and justice demanded of me to respond. 
Accordingly, my son, Allen R. Hayden, bookkeeper and Business 
Manager of The Texas Baptist and Herald, with my full knowledge 
nounced honorable and worthy by their membership, are "dis- 
and consent, submitted these accounts as published in the Minutes 
to two of the most reputable expert bookkeepers in Texas, viz: 
A. C. Ardrey, for years treasurer of this Convention, and J. H. 
Martin, bookkeeper for the National Bank at Corsicana, and at 
one time bookkeeper for Sanger Brothers in Dallas, and for a lead- 
ing firm in San Antonio, and still earlier for Messrs. Seligman 
& Co., of Galveston, all of which firms have given him credentials 
as to his expertness and trustworthiness. After thorough and 
exhaustive examination of these accounts they both pronounced 
them unsatisfactory, unintelligible and no adequate exhibit of that 
six months' work. Compliance, therefore, with the demand for 
apology was impossible without the stultification of both myself 
and every competent man who had pronounced upon the books. 

Previously to the Houston Convention, Rev. J. B. Cranfill had 
written a letter, now in my possession, declaring that he had con- 
sulted attorneys and that if any reference was male in the Ud'n =s 
paper derogatory to those accounts, he would bring suit for libel. 
With this threat from him and this demand of apology from 
his friends, there was nothing left but dishonor in silence on the 
one hand or the publication of the whole matter on the other. 
I promptly chose the latter course. Now comes L. M. Mays, friend 
of J. B. Cranfill and member of the Board, and demands my expul- 
sion from this body because I did not take the course of dis- 
honor. The minority report of the Board at Marshall had pointed 
out, based on official statements of the Board, and published in 
their Minutes and in J. B. Crannll's paper, the Texas Baptist 
Standard, that he had, during the six months in question appropri- 
ated to his own private use the assets of the Board. Compare 
Minutes, 1891, p. 15, -with Minutes of 1892, p. 14 et seq. 

Now this body is called upon to declare that my refusal to pro- 
nounce S. J. Anderson, H. B. Pender, Rufus C. Burleson, 
and other members of the Board "dishonorable," for they 
have said "officially" and personally in print all that I 
have ever said, and differ from me only in that I have a 
paper and they have not. Two facts are susceptible of proof: 
First, that, according to two expert Baptist bookkeepers, the six 
months' accounts in question is no adequate exhibit of the moneys 
received or disbursed; and, second, that the published Minutes 
of the Convention prove conclusively that Secretary J. B. Cranfill 
did appropriate to his own private use the assets of the Con- 
vention. , , 

That Secretary CranflU's last six months' accounts were not 



48 THE COMPLETE 

satisfactory to the whole Board will also appear from the fact 
that as late as the Gainesville Convention in 1893, eighteen 
months after the close of his service, they were matter of ref- 
erence, and were passed for "lack of data." This information 
is basedon the statement of Dr. H. W. Smith, Deacon, until 
lately, in the First Baptist Church of Waco, and Recording Sec- 
retary of the Board from October, 1892, to October, 1894. Dr. 
Smith is a messenger seated in this Convention by a report of 
the committee apointed on the nomination of the Maverick caucus. 
He is here and will testify if called upon. 

In confirmation of the fact that I am not guilty of dishonor, 
as alleged by L. M. Mays, for maintaining the rights of this 
Convention, and that I am not unworthy of a seat in it for the 
^au c e alleged, I present the following statements: 

Statement of Rev. H. B. Pender. 

San Antonio, Texas, Nov. 6, 1897. 

This is to certify that on one occasion while in conversation 
with him on State Missions and his connection therewith, Rev. 
J. B. Cranfill did say to me, in a semi-jocular manner: "I can 
pull the wool over the eyes of you fellows and you would never 
know it." 

And I also certify that while I was pastor at Farmersville 
Church the Clerk, Bro. Z. A. C. Harris, requested me to secure 
for him a receipt from Rev. J. B. Cranfill for a collection of $60 
taken by him (J. B. O), December 28, 1889; that he had tried to 
get it and failed. I approached Rev. Cranfill on the subject during 
a Mission Rally at McKinney, but could get neither receipt nor 
any satisfaction, nor has any yet been given. 

H. B. PENDER. 



Rev. S. L.. Yarrell's Statement. 

I hereby certify that in the East Fork Association at Terrell 
in 1890, if I mistake not, Dr. J. B. Cranfill took a collection for 
Missions. He began by announcing that he would be one of ten 
to raise $100, and I saw him contribute a $10 bill, and he asked 
others to do the same. Being near him, I saw distinctly that it 
was a $10 bill. Others made contributions, which he took into 
his hands, calling out, while the Clerk wrote down the names 
and amounts until the sum had reached $110, including Dr. Cran- 
fill's $10. When Dr. Cranfill handed the sum over to the Clerk I 
saw him return a bill of money, whose denomination I could 
not see, as it was folded, into his vest pocket. When the sum 
was counted out, there was found only $100 delivered to the 
Clerk, and as Dr. Cranfill had been seen to return a bill to his 
pocket, the amount opposite his name was printed blank in 
the Minutes. This certificate is given in the interest of truth, 
justice and the cause of Missions. 

(Signed) S. L. YARRELL. 

With the facts now presented, any effort to inflict penalty 
upon me for my fidelity in the highest interests of this Con- 
vention is as if his comrade should fire into a faithful sentinel 
standing at his post. 

I am conscious as before God, before whom we must all appear, 
that I have acted in fidelity to His cause and to the best interests 
of the organized work in the Convention which, in the judgment 
of the Baptist brotherhood of this State, I was the chief instru- 
men in the hands of God in effecting, through the consolidation of 
all the general bodies of the State. There is nothing I crave, next 
to the love of God and my family, above the love and fellowship 
of my Baptist brethren, and this San Antonio episode gives me 
unspeakable grief. I look upon it as a huge accident, unprece- 
dented in Baptist history and to be corrected by the very breth- 
ren who have, all unknown to themselves, been led into it un- 
awares. To lose confidence in my brethren is the next worse 
thing to losing confidence in God; and with devout gratitude to 
Him for His grace, I can say in His hearing, without affectation 
or pride, that I have not allowed this event to embitter my mind 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 49 



ag-ainst any one, nor my serenity or spiritual joy to be disturbed. 
I can say with the g-olden-mouthed Melvill that I look upon 
everything- in life, whether in this world or the other world, 
which He has created as a servant for our good, under His reign 
01 grace. "I look upon the starry firmament, ardent with gems 
oracular, from which, as from the Urim and Thummim on Aaron's 
ephod, come messages full ow divinity. And in committing the 
interests of our great Convention and of mvself and all of 
God s elect to Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, I am commit- 
ting us to One who speaks to me from every star-ooint of the 
visible universe, whose voice is in the marchings of" the planets 
and the rushing of whose melodies is on the wings of the day- 
light." Committing us all to the loving care of an all sufficient 
Savior and to the soft violence of the Holy Spirit and to the 
Father of us all, I subscribe myself a brother in Christ. 

S. A. HAYDEN. 

Plaintiff further shows that said libelous matter was after- 
wards, with the same malicious intent, and in pursuance of the 
same common purpose, published by Defendants, in pamphlet form, 
in what is known as the Minute of the Proceedings of The Bap- 
tist General Convention of Texas, 49th Annual Session, (12th since 
consolidation). 

That said Minute was written, prepared and published by De- 
fendants, and does not contain a fair, just and full report of all 
that occurred during the proceedings, which would have affected 
the belief of the public as to the guilt or innocence of the Plain- 
tiff of the charges made against him; but, on the contrary, falsely 
makes it appear that said Committee on Credentials was appoint- 
ed by the President, and not by the Convention, on motion of the 
Defendants. And it wholly omits and fails to publish the "Reply" 
of Plaintiff to said charges, which reply was referred to, accom- 
panied and made a part of said Minority Report, denying the 
jurisdiction of the Committee and of the Convention over the 
subject matter and of the person of the Plaintiff, and it purposely, 
designedly and maliciously omitted and failed to publish the 
Minority Report, signed by Revs. Drs. Anderson, Parks and Rob- 
erts, as heretofore shown, denying jurisdiction and the submission 
of any evidence in support of the charges against Plaintiff and 
asking that they be dismissed. 

That the said libelous publications in said Baptist Standard 
and said Minute of the Baptist General Convention of Texas 
aforesaid were sold and largely circulated by Defendants in and 
through Dallas County, Texas, and throughout the country as 
aforesaid, to Plaintiff's great damage. 

XIII. 

Plaintiff further shows that in and by said false and libelous 
publications aforesaid, said Defendants have wilfully, maliciously 
and with reckless disregard of Plaintiff's character and rights, 
and with personal spite, hatred and ill feeling towards Plaintiff; 
and in pursuance of a common design to humiliate, disgrace and 
.put him in contempt, and to break down, injure and destroy his 
business and The Texas Baptist and Herald; so to secure the 
indorsement of their own plans, methods- and policy, and that of 
the Board, by the Convention; and to perpetuate their own domi- 
nation over the Convention and the Baptist denomination in 
Texas; and to build up The Texas Baptist Standard; and in their 
meaning and intent denounced, villified and defamed this Plain- 
tiff and among other things of and concerning this Plain- 
tiff in a certain part of said libelous publication, that 
this Plaintiff is "Utterly Unworthy of a Seat in This 
Convention," and in a certain other part of the same that he 
has "Convicted himself of dishonorable conduct," and in a certain 
other part of the same, that "He is unworthy of a seat in this 
Convention on moral grounds," meaning thereby that Plaintiff 
was guilty of immoral conduct and of immoral character, and, in 
a certain other part of the same, that his conduct was such "As 
to convict said Hayden as being an incorrigible foe to the whole 
organization and work of this Convention, and to render his 
connection with it a standing menace to the life of the whole body, 



50 THE COMPLETE 

and to the cause of religion, morality and education, as repre- 
sented by it/' meaning thereby that Plaintiff is of notoriously 
bad and infamous character, and other vile, personal, bitter, de- 
grading and opprobrious epithets, charges, defamations and libel- 
ous assertions — all of which together with the entire challenge 
and publications herein set out, were and are false, malicious and 
without probable cause, to Plaintiff's great damage in his person, 
character and capacities, hereinbefore set out. 

XIV. 
That by reason of the aforesaid libel, injuries and wrongs corn- 
plained of herein, and the wanton, reckless and defamatory manner 
in which they were perpetrated by Defendants, this Plaintiff has 
been actually damaged in this: That about twelve thousand per- 
sons have been induced thereby to refuse, and have refused to 
pay their subscriptions, now due and unpaid, on the legitimate 
subscriptions to said paper, to Plaintiff's great damage. 

That many of the aforesaid subscribers have been induced' 
thereby to stop their subscriptions, and to refuse to renew their 
subscriptions to said paper, to Plaintiff's great damage. 

That many of his advertising patrons have been induced there- 
by to withhold their advertising patronage from said paper, and 
therefore lost to him to his great damage. 

That by reason of the same the profits and Income from said 
business has been greatly diminished and deteriorated thereby 
to Plaintiff's great damage. 

That by reason of all of which Plaintiff has suffered great 
injury to his feelings; great mortification, humiliation and an- 
guish of mind, to his great damage. 

That by reason thereof Plaintiff has been damaged in his good 
name and reputation as a citizen, as a minister of the Gospel, and 
as an editor and proprietor of a religious newspaper, before the 
Baptist denomination in Texas, and throughout the United States, 
and that by reason of all of which Plaintiff has sustained actual 
damages in the sum of fifty thousand ($50,000.00) dollars. 

That by reason of the malicious, wanton and reckless spirit, 
intent and manner in which the said wrongs and injuries were 
inflicted by Defendants against Plaintiff; and by reason of their 
feeling of ill will, personal spite and improper motives, and their 
acting together in common design, in furtherance of a common 
purpose as aforesaid, and without probable cause, this Plaintiff 
has sustained damages in the sum of fifty thousand ( $50,000.00 "> 
dollars. 

Wherefore, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that each of 
said Defendants be duly cited in terms of law to answer this 
Petition and that on final trial hereof he have judgment for his 
damages; for all costs of suit, and for all legal or equitable relief, 
both special and general, to which he may be entitled. 

D. A. HOLMAN, 
CRAWFORD & CRAWFORD, 
COCKRELL & MUSE, 

Attorneys for Plaintiff. 



Defendant's Amended Answer. 

The Defendant's Answer consisted of the following pleadings: 

1. General Denial, Putting Plaintiff to the Proof. 

2. Privilege, on the Ground that the Convention was a Sover- 
eign Body and had the Right to Expel its Members for Cause. 

3. Justification by the Truth of the Challenge in Every Par- 
ticular. 

The Plea of Justification by the Truth involved the production 
of articles published in The Texas Baptist Herald which took two 
days to read to the Jury. The Aritcles were written by R. C. Bur- 
leson, S. J. Anderson, W. H. Parks, W. E. Tynes, H. B. Pender, E. 
B. Hardie, S. C. Bailey and others, also of Editorials written by 
the Plaintiff. All these Articles were pronounced in Pleadings of 
Defendants "False and Malicious and Intended to Injure the Cause 
of Missions and did Injure Missions." 

It would require volumes to publish the full pleadings of De- 
fendants, but the above contains faithfully the legal points in- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 51 

volved in Defendants' answer. 

It will be noticed that the Defendants' Pleadings are self- 
contradictory as, for instance, "General Denial" and "Justification 
by the Truth." But under the laws of Texas a Defendant may 
make any number of pleadings in his defense, however inconsist- 
ent with one another. The object of the law is to give the De- 
fendants every possible opportunity of escape without holding 
him responsible for the inconsistency of his pleadings. The ef- 
fect of pleading "General Denial" is to put the burden of proof 
upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff must prove: First, Conspiracy 
Second, Libel; Third, The Untruth of Libel; and, Fourth, Malice. 
And he must connect every Defendant with all these elements of 
crime, or he will under the law be acquitted. At the opening of 
the case, B. H. Carroll pleaded the Statute of Limitations, that Is, 
over twelve months had elapsed between the San Antonio Conven- 
tion and this trial. He was accordingly under the law dismissed 
from further connection with the suit. He should have stayed 
with his Co-Defendants and shared their fate or triumphed in 
their acquittal. 



B. H. Carrol Pleads the Statute of Limitations. 

"In God's Law there is no Statute of Limitations." — Louis Sts- 
venson in "Dr. Jekyl and Hr. Hyde." 
S. A. Hayden vs. J. B. Cranfill, et al. In District Court, Dallas 

County, Texas. Fall Term, 1900, 44th Judicial District. 

Now at this time came the Defendants B. H. Carroll and C. C 
Carroll, and with leave of the Court, file this, their First Amended 
Original Answer, amending and correcting their Original Answer 

filed herein on the day of October, 1900, filed, as their own, 

and in addition thereby adopt all of the demurrers, pleas and 
answers of their Co-Defendants herein filed as their own, and in 
addition thereto, say that Plaintiff's Third Amended Original Peti- 
tion is wholly insufficient to require them to answer thereto, in 
that all of the matters and things herein complained of are shown 
by the averments of the said Amended Petition, to have occurred 
more than one year before the filing of the same, and more than 
two years from the filing of same; and that said pretended cause of 
action, if any existed asrainst these Defendants, was barred by 
the statute of Limitations of two years, and of this they pray 
judgment of the Court. 
Henry & Henry; Crane & Greer; J. H. Truett; E. C. Gambrell; G. 

G. "Wright. Attorneys for B. H. and C. C. Carroll. 



52 THE COMPLETE 

WHY WAS THE "REFORM PAPER" OFFENSIVE? 

Why was the Reform Paper so offensive? Why did it excite 
such indignation? At the time it was written, no one suspected 
any crookedness. It vouched for the "integrity, good faith and 
zeal for missions" of all. Wherein lay any "attack?" It was 
promptly withdrawn because the contract for the year was 
pleaded, because the contract plea could not be answered. The 
rage of the Carrolls and Cranfill knew no bounds. I sought an 
interview with B. H. Carroll. He refused. I asked for a con- 
ference with him in the presence of mutual friends. He de- 
clined. J. B. Scarborough, W. C. Latimore and others employed 
their good offices, trying to bring about a reconciliation. It 
seemed about to be effected, when Defendant Cranfill raised 
the point of "order" that "reconciliation was not the function 
of the Board, but Missions." But this had no force, and the 
peacemakers were proceeding to insist with forcible persuasion 
when Defendant B. H. Carroll withdrew from the room, show- 
ing his concerted understanding that no peace must be made. 
They had, they said, "been attacked." I had said: "I have never 
spoken with my tongue, nor written with my pen, nor thought 
in my heart that they had done a thing that they did not think 
was for the best for the Mission cause. They favored secrecy, 
I publicity." I believed it then. But I could not see why they 
should be so irreconcilable. I found later. 

It is no digression here to say that underneath it all was De- 
fendant B. H. Carroll's "sore need of a paper at Waco." He was 
frenzied for praise. He was not avaricious, nor covetous, nor 
miserly. But Praise, Praise! He craved it as the inebriate his 
drink, or the victim of morphine or cocaine his stimulant. The 
loses must be continually increased. There was indeed "a sore 
need of a paper at Waco," one that would weekly proclaim 
"Pastor Carroll, the greatest living preacher in the world since 
the death of Spurgeon," "Sermon by Pastor Carroll Preached in 
the Tabernacle, Waco, Sunday Morning, ... ., 1894!" Thus at 
the bottom of it all was "newspaper competition." "The sore 



CONSPIEAOY TRIAL 53 

need of a paper at Waco." The passion for praise had blunted 
the caution of confession as in all other inordinate human de- 
sires. The offence of the Reform Paper was, in its nerve center, 
the offence of Publicity! It advocated the taking of the Churches 
into full confidence. 

To reveal to the Churches the scale of expenses with its 
$2,500 to Defendant J. M. Carroll, and over $30 a day to De 
fendant J. B. Cranfill, a financial "You scratch my back and I'll 
scratch yourn," together with the nepotism that lay behind it, 
and Defendant Cranfill's embezzlement that lay beneath it, would 
greatly injure and endanger the supply of "the sore need of a 
paper at Waco." Hence the whole fight was centered on The 
Texas Baptist Herald and its editor. In vain were Doctors Bur- 
leson, Anderson, Pender, cited as equally favoring the Reform 
Paper. That were, with the Board Party leaders, irrelevant. 
They had no newspaper. They laid it all on The Herald and 
its editor. "Down Hayden!" "Crush Hayden!!" "When a horse 
kicks in the team, take him out to whip him." "He has a news- 
paper." "It is his paper that is doing the damage." "Crush it!" 

In the Court House, the counsel for Defendants, when asked 
why they challenged Plaintiff Hayden, and left out Doctors Bur- 
leson, Anderson, Pender, and others, writing the same things 
as Plaintiff Hayden, freely admitted that "Plaintiff Hayden had 
a newspaper, and was therefore responsible for the criticism of 
the Board, and he and his paper needed to be suppressed." Car- 
thago delenda est. 

Defendant B. H. Carroll, who had in print charged Dr. R 
C. Burleson with "Dishonor," swore, on the witness stand' that 
Dr. R. C. Burleson was not with the Church Party, but with the 
Board Party; or rather, was not on Plaintiff Hayden's side of 
this issue, but on the other! It was dangerous to the Defend- 
ants to assail Dr. Burleson before the court in anything. Al- 
though they had hounded him to his grave because he was an 
advocate of Reform and openly stood by the Plaintiff; yet they 
undertook to break the spell of his name by eulogizing him from 
the witness stand. "He was not on Hayden's side!!" He was 



54 THE COMPLETE 

the honest preacher and faithful president, the true missionary, 
the cavalier of the Baptists, the Henry of Navarre whose white 
plume shone in the thickest of the fray. True, he had misuner- 
stood the motive of his deposition from the presidency of Bay- 
lor, imagining that it was only to make room for Defendant B. H. 
Carroll, when B. H. Carroll only had him removed because "Na- 
ture had administered her black drop," and they wanted to give 
him lighter work (leaving his home and braving heat and cold 
to rest him)! That was Defendant B. H. Carroll's printed plea! 
He wanted to rest him though he saw it was breaking hid 
heart. He did rest him for he hastened the coming of the rest 
that remaineth. But he was not on the side of reform; that 
was Plaintiff Hayden's false claim. The following, among many 
other letters, is testimony as if sworn: 

Dr. Burleson for Reform. 

Waco, Texas, September 1, 1894. 
Rev. Dr. S. A. Hayden, Dallas, Texas: 

Dear Brother — My salary in the University is $2,000 a year. 
The Trustees allow me $60 a month for canvassing and my 
travelling expenses in vacation. They gave Brother George W. 
Truett, last year, $120 a month and his traveling expenses. But, 
then, I have been at it forty-three years, and he is new and 
bright and promising. I am very sad to say that it was during 
the last meeting of the Board of Directors that Brother J. M. 
Carroll said with emphasis, "I would freely give a thousand dol- 
lars to lick him," referring" to you. I am profoundly ashamed 
that such words should be spoken in the meeting of the Board 
o-f Directors of the Baptist State Convention of Texas. I sup- 
pose you are aware that it was Dr. B. H. Carroll who said in a 
former meeting, speaking of you, "I wish I had the power to 
expel him from the Board of Directors, but I have not." This 
whole furor has been to me a matter of profound mystery, and 
equally fo-lly, for as I have repeatedly said, there could be noth- 
ing in your letter on reforming and retrenching the expenses of 
the Mission Board. The only thing to be questioned was the pro 
priety of discussing it at that time, when the contracts had 
already been made, but scores of our brethren do not seem 
to know that I, and, I suppose, you and every other member of 
the Board, was being censured for paying $2,500 a year to our 
Secretary, and his traveling expenses, and also $600 a year for 



C0NSPIR40Y TRIAL 55 

his typewriter, while the poor missionaries 'were almost starving 
on the frontier, on $500 to $G00 a year. And it was an absolute 
necessity for us in some way to show that we intended to re- 
trench, or we would have lost all confidence and co-operation of 
the brethren. I have intended to write you a carefully prepared 
letter in the spirit of Brother Anderson's letter published in the 
last number of the Herald, but our people are absolutely so crazy 
that it is well nigh impossible to write anything without being 
utterly misunderstood. And I was waiting for the troubled 
waters to subside and for Reason to resume her throne. But I 
cannot wait much longer. Patrons with their sons and daughters 
are pouring in, and letters and telegrams are coming by the 
score, but I will try and find leisure to have something prepared 
for your next issue. In the meantime, I hope we will all spend 
much time in prayer, and endeavor to do all things in love and 
calmness. In the meantime, I will suggest that you and all of 
us keep a powerful canvassing force for your neighbor's and 
co-laborer's paper and also to pay off the public debt; but a 
shrewd observer said to me, "They are canvassing about as 
vigorously for Brother Jimmie and against Hayden. All this is 
intended for culmination at Marshall. Yours affectionately, 

RUFUS C. BURLESON. 
Why, then, was the Paper so offensive? 

The cause of the offense remained to be more fully developed 
later. It is summed up in one word, Publicity, and the offense 
that Publicity gives. 

Another reason the proposed Publicity was so offensive will 
appear from the following disclosures which came out more 
fully on the Trials: 

1. In April, 1892, J. B. Cranfill was chairman of the com- 
mittee which fixed J. M. Carroll's salary at $2,500 a year, with 
the privilege of employing office help, and expenses at his pleas- 
ure. There was absolutely no limit! His family consisted of 
his wife and one child. J. B. Cranfill, as chairman of the com- 
mittee, fixed his salary at $2,500, with the right to appoint to 
salaried positions any whom he chose, and pay them out of the 
Mission Fund. The Convention had always hitherto fixed sal- 
aries. 

2. In turn, J. M. Carroll agreed to pay, and did pay, J. B 



56 THE COMPLETE 

Cranfill $125 out of the Mission Fund for "four Sundays" in the 
month. This was continued for several months! This is in- 
credible, but Defendant J. M. Carroll was forced to swear it, 
for his books show it. 

3. Under this arrangement, J. M. Carroll claimed for every 
year "365 days labor," and drew his full salary of $2,500, while 
he "docked" the salaries of the Missionaries, who had large 
families, and who received only one-fifth as much per annum 
as himself, withholding pay for every "half day" "lost time." 
This, too, while J. M. Carroll was spending much of his time 
"huting and recreating," including a trip of several weeks to 
the World's Fair at Chicago on a free ticket for himself and 
nephew, his stenographer. 

4. For a single room in his residence of eleven rooms (the 
whole house worth $15 or $20 a month," as proven, and not de- 
nied) he charged $20 a month for "Office Rent," and paid thii 
to himself out of the money contributed to Missions. 

5. He used his residence as a Boarding House for his mis- 
sion force, consisting of his brother-in-law as bookkeeper at $75 
a month, his nephew as stenographer at $50 ($25 he afterward 
claimed) a month, and another nephew and a niece at salaries 
paid from the Mission Fund — five in all! 

6. In addition to all this, he paid his Accident Life Insurance 
out of the Mission Fund, and on oath admitted that he told the 
Board that "if they had not consented to it, he would have made 
it cost the Board from $250 to $700 a year for his transporta- 
tion!" 

7. To cap the climax, he paid Ex-Secretary J. B. Cranfill, af 
ter he had resigned, between April and October, 1892, over 
"$2,500 to be paid to missionaries," not one of whom so paid 
could ever be mentioned by either Cranfill or Carroll and not 
a scratch of a pen of any of them is to be found in the accounts 
of either! 

8. Last of all while Cranfill fixed Carroll's salary and ex- 
penses and while Carroll paid Cranfill over $2,500 to be paid to 
missionaries," besides $125 a month for "four Sundays," it was 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 57 

proven and admitted by the Defendants that " the expenses of 
J. B. Cranfill for 1890 and 1891 could not be definitely ascer- 
tained." This statement is a part of the Board Records now in 
the hands of Defendant G. W. Truett, of Dallas. 

Nearly all this was unknown and unsuspected by Plaintiff at 
the time the Reform Paper was offered. All I knew was that J. M. 
Carroll had written a letter urging secrecy as to his expenses, 
and that the missionaries were officially reported to be "living on 
bread alone." Why the Publicity proposed should be construed 
into an "attack" was perhaps known at that time only to De- 
fendants Cranfill and the Carrolls. The Court proceedings in this 
Complete Conspiracy Trial Book will disclose it all. 

These general financial figures were aggravated by equally 
embarrassing facts. 

First. The Reform Paper sustained and reinforced by the 
Church Party insisted as a matter of right on stated reports of 
collections and disbursements. The Board Party complained 
that such demand was a reflection, indeed, a "charge" against 
the officers and members of hte Board; that "the Convention 
was as sovereign in its sphere as the Churches, or the indi- 
vidual conscious were in their respective spheres," and that 
"complaint or criticism should not be made except before the 
Convention in its annual session;" that "if the Board members, 
thirty in number, could not be trusted, whom could we trust?" 
This personal confidential plea was thoroughly plied all over 
the State and an appeal made to sustain and defend the Board 
against the "attacks" made on the members. 

Second. The Church Party demanded these reports as a mat- 
ter of expediency on the ground that the Churches could not 
be developed except on information; that while the Board Party 
was preaching "Enlightenment" they were concealing from the 
Churches the work of the Board and padding the reports to 
a degree amounting to a sham. 

To this the Board Party replied that the "Convention was 
composed of individuals" (afterward adding messengers). It was 
therefore no affair of the Churches; that "over these matters 



•»o THE COMPLETE 

the churches had no control," and "the Churches which complain- 
ed at them were but renewing the old anti-missionary campaign 
Of 1832." And numerous arguments of the anti-missionaries of 
the day were quoted as confirming this statement. B. H. Car- 
roll, Jr., originally one of the Defendants, compiled and pub- 
lished a book to prove it. That the objectors were "enemies" to 
missions and that the "time had come when the knife must be 
put to their throats." 

Third. The Church Party claimed that co-operative bodies 
were composed of representatives of the Churches in the limited 
sense, not in the legislative sense, and were but Joint Commil- 
tees subordinate to the Churches. 

To this the Board Party replied that this view was "Presby- 
terianism." For this there was not a shadow of foundation. The 
plea was used merely as a political slogan to hold their people 
together by shying against a Presbyterial government to which 
there was not even the semblance of similarity. 

Fourth. The Church Party claimed that it was wrong to put and 
keep men of notoriously immoral character in positions of trust 
to the injury of the morals of young men merely because these 
licentious men put up money in large sums or rendered other 
service to the Board Party. The Board Party cited this as "proof 
that the Church Party people were anti-missionaries. For, said 
they, what better proof could any missionary want than these 
"attacks" on the officers and members of the Board? It was to 
no effect that drunkenness, embezzlement and licentiousness in 
their worst forms were cited, giving date and detail. The reply 
was reiterated that "If we could not trust these brethren, whom 
could we trust?" "What better proof could be demanded that 
the Church Party people were anti-missionaries than the wicked 
charges that these officers and Board members were guilty of 
habitual drunkenness, embezzlement of mission money, licen- 
tiousness, extravagance, favoritism in the distribution of mission 
funds, etc?" In vain the persons were named with the accuracy 
of time, place and circumstance. These moral delinquents were 
promoted, the Baptist population , of the old States were loaded 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 59 

with accounts of their good deeds, and the secular press was 
filled wi**i honorable mention of them all, with i!;e invariable 
addition that "the mission cause was prospering, the opposition 
was dying out and things were getting better." The more was 
proven the more they praised. The "Organized Work" was the 
.. hole seven cities of refuge on both sides of the Jordan to which 
every immoral Board Party minister and Church Party minister 
or member, fled with assurance of protection from the "perse- 
cutions of the anti-missionaries." This in the face of the fact 
that in the past every large giver to missions in Texas was a. 
firm adherent of the Church Party and had been so recognized 
in the reports of the Convention prior to the time of the Reform 
Paper as signed by the Defendants Carroll themselves and all the 
Board members. 

Every Church Party man in Texas had been an active mis- 
sionary all his Christian life, while many, if not most of the 
Board Party, were or wanted to be Beneficiaries. The Carrolls 
particularly had been beneficiaries. J. M. was a stipendary for 
years and B. H. as a standing candidate for any honor that could 
be secured. But this charge of "antimissionism" was urged 
against the most prominent Baptists of Texas, such as R. C. 
B irleson, W. H. Parks, T. B. McComb, the oldest preacher in 
Texas/ J. L. Simpson, the oldest missionary of the Convention, 
and indeed all the notable Baptists of the State. In the face 
of all this the faithful Baptists of the Old Stares applauded cr 
condoned these "workers" so called and condemned the "kickers"' 
so-called who were standing for the highest morality and the 
truest missions which they had maintained from the beginning 
before these beneficiaries had come into their land of milk and., 
honey. In such circumstances, the weak fall and only the stal- 
wart hold on their course. But the chief offense of the Publicity 
demanded was the "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yorn" 
policy of the Carrolls and Cranfill 

Defendant J. M. Carroll's books forced into court in the Mali 
Prosecution case of 1899, revealed a sad state of things, showing 
over $2500 turned over to J. B. Cranfill after he had resigned 



60 THE COMPLETE 

"to pay missionaries." But not a receipt could be shown or any 

man named by either Defendant Cranfill or Defendant Carroll, to 
whom a cent of the money was paid! Thsi payment of $2,500 was 
after Cranfill resigned, April 5, 1892, and before the close of the 
Conventional year, October, 1892. The Board Records show that 
Cranfill resigned April 5, 1892, and before the close of the Con- 
ventional year, October 1892. The Board records show that 
Cranfill could not be induced to make his report until October, 
1896, when he presented the so-called "lost books." They were 
transcrips and not the originals, in four or five different handwrit- 
ings which Cranfill himself said he could not identify. They 
were what the lawyers called "cooked books," got up for the 
purpose. The $2,500 that J. M. Carroll's books show he paid to De- 
fendant Cranfill "to pay missionaries" did not, by CrannH's sworn 
statement, include any amounts due missionaries before Cranfill 
resigned, for he swore that his books were closed on that day, 
April 5, 1892, and that all his missionaries were paid before that 
date! After that date Dft. J. M. Carroll's books show no mis- 
sionary paid out of that fund. Therefore, by their own books, 
no missionaries were paid out of that $2500. Here in one short 
six months $2500 of mission money is found to have gone into 
Defendant Cranfill's hands which was never paid out to the mis- 
sionaries. It is not too much to say that, with the $36,000 defalca- 
tion of Dft. John T. Battle as treasurer for Secretary Cranfill 
and about $10,000 embezzled by Cranfill himself, not less than 
$46,000 of denominational money went into the pockets of Defend- 
ants, only $18,000 of which was returned under the menace of the 
Grand Jury and the concrete fact of the penitentiary, leaving 
$28,000 known to have been misappropriated by and under the 
"spirit-guided" Aegis of the Defendants. 

It is hoped that these pages may serve to avert the recur- 
rence of this sad and shameful state of things. If when Cran- 
fill's shortage was pointed out in a "Minority Report" of the 
Board, signed by R. C. Burleson, S. J. Anderson, H. B. Pender 
and S. A, Hayden at Marshall, 1894, an honest, fair course had 
been adopted, tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 61 

would have been saved to the widows, orphans, preachers and 
people who put their all in the San Jacinto oil swindle, and De- 
fendant Battle might, and it is believed would, have saved the 
shame of his defalcation and the mission and educational fund 
$28,000 or more. But when the Carrolls and Geo. W. Truett and 
their Co-defendants locked shields over Defendant Cranfill and 
declared they would spend their last drop of blood for his pro- 
tection, they bid Defendant Battle and all their coadjutors take 
what they needed, and they would hide or defend them in it. 

This leads to fuller statement of the John T. Battle case, and 
the efforts of his coadjutors to conceal it. 



THE JOHN T. BATTLE DEFALCATION. 

At the Baptist General Convention at Dallas, November 16, 
1905, Dft. W. H. Jenkins of Waco offered some proposed amend- 
ments to the constitution of the Convention. He explained that 
they relate to the Treasurer of the Convention, viz: John T. 
Battle. 

The five Trustees of the Convention embody within them- 
selves the legal life of the Convention, he said, and under the 
present law they were responsible for all the trust money placed 
in the hands of the Treasurer, although they do not elect or 
appoint that officer. Under the present law, the Treasurer is 
supposed to have in his hands all the money raised for missions, 
but that requirement never has been and never can be complied 
with. 

The amendments which he proposed were designed to make 
the Constitution of the Convention provide that the Trustees 
shall annually select their own president, secretary and treas- 
urer; that they shall annually report the moneys collected and 
disbursed by them and that the Directors of the Convention 
shall do the same. 

This motion of Dft. Jenkins for the amendment of the Con- 
stitution affecting the appointment of the Treasurer involved 
one of the saddest episodes in the history of the Convention. 



62 THE COMPLE T K 

There ought to have been a frank, full and complete statement 
of this sad case made to the Churches. It is a hardship to im- 
pose such a statement on the Plaintif, or the alternative of joining 
in suppressing matters which the Churches have a right to 
know which has been advocated by me during its lifetime. In- 
deed, this statement that the Churches should know everything 
has for all these years brought the -stress of battle upon the 
Plaintiff. A full statement as it has come to me made in fidelity to 
God's" truth and in justice to the Churches of Texas, viz: 

In July, 1905, it was discovered that Defendant John T. Battle, 

for many years Treasurer of the Baptist General Convention of 
Texas, was short in his accounts of Convention and University 
funds, said to aproximate $36,000; $5000 of it was said to be 
Convention money. When this shortage was discovered, Treas- 
urer Battle offered his resignation. As the Convention had elect- 
ed him, there was no one to receive his resignation except the 
Trustees, hence Defendant Jenkins' proposed amendment. The 
First Church of Waco, of which Defendant Battle was a member, 
withdrew fellowship from him and his name was stricken from the 
Church rolls. The original shortage was about $36,000. But it is 
stated that he sold his place and his mother sold her place and that 
the proceeds of these two sales covered half of the amount of 
money missing, leaving the shortage about $18,000. These fig- 
ures are only approximate. When asked what he had done with 
the money, he said that would never be known to anybody, or 
something of that sort. That raises the question as to whether 
the money was lost in San Jacinto Oil, cotton futures or specula- 
tion of other kinds. About it nothing is definitely known. It 
was the duty of the Directors of the Baptist General Convention 
of Texas to make full, frank and fair statement of all facts. The 
proposition of Defendant Jenkins to amend the Constitution so as 
to allow the Trustees of the Convention to elect their Treasurer 
rather than the Convention elect him, as has been the law 
heretofore, was eminently proper. But this nest-hiding which has 
been going on, much to the detriment of our cause, should be 
brought to an end. The amendment was made as suggested by 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 63 

Defendant Jenkins. These facts are given from reliable informa- 
tion volunteered to the Plaintiff by prominent citizens of Waco. 
From prominent sources in Waco Plaintiff also learned months 
ago that it was gravely discussed as to whether the matter should 
be brought before the grand jury, evidently with the aim of 
squeezing out of him all they could and then covering the matter 
up. So he, having sold his place and his mother's place, and a 
part of the $36,000 having been returned, the only action taken 
was that of the Church. I do not blame Defendant Battle alone 
Every leading and informed member of the Board is morally re- 
sponsible as much as he. He had been the Treasurer for years. 
No money had been put in his hands for a long time and he 
was used as the Treasurer to certify the reports of Defendant J. 
B. Cranfill, well known by the members of the Board to have a 
shortage involving fully $10,000. In the trials Defendant Battle 
was put on the witness stand in defense of Cranfill. His testi- 
mony was very damaging to Cranfill and it convinced every one 
who heard it that he had, while attempting to shield Cranfill, 
been forced into statements that, with the accounts themselves, 
convicted Defendant Cranfill of embezzlement. Now, after he 
had seen the leading members of the Board defend Cranfill and 
attempt to cover his shortage, it was surely a natural law, what- 
ever may be said of the moral nature of it, that he should ex- 
pect protection from the same men. He had attempted to pro- 
tect them in a similar case, and now sold his place and his 
mother's place to make the shortage good as far as he could, and 
he cannot be said to be more blamable than the rest. How 
much of the University fund has been lost by this misfortune 
is not known outside of the Trustees of the University and the 
Directors of the Convention themselves. 

This was all wrong. A full, fair and candid report should 
have been made of the affairs of the Board. Had the defalca 
tion come from misfortune, it was due Defendant Battle to say 
so. Had the loss been wilful the Board owed it to the denom- 
ination and to good morals to say so. The denomination has 
an interest in the future. A fair report was due on this account. 



64 THE COMPLETE 

If this nest hiding involving trust funds goes on the cause of 
missions will be materially impaired. The attempt to cover De- 
fendant Cranfill's shortage made it natural for the larger shortage 
of Defendant Battle, and these two in turn will lay the precedent 
for any one hereafter to despoil the missionary treasury with a 
guaranteed of concealment by the Board. 



Methought I lost my way, in an open field I stood; 

Strength well-nigh gone, the blinding storm fierce beating in my 
face. 

I looked about for refuge, straining my eyes for sight of habitation. 

And lo, I saw a gate. How glad I was; toward it I hasted. 

"Here I may doubtless rest," I thought, "until the storm is o'er." 

"Holiness" was written on the lintel of that gate; 

And as I knocked it opened wide, and beauteous forms appeared, 

All clad in garments white. But when I tried to enter, 

A shining one exclaimed, "This place was made for holy ones; 

Thou canst not enter here, because thou art a man of sin." 

The door was closed, and I was left alone, weary and sick at 
heart. 

I staggered on amid the gathering gloom; 

And lo, another gate I saw. It was the gate of Justice. 

With hope, and yet with fear, I thither bent my steps. 

Alas, alas for me, armed soldiers kept the gate, 

And would no.t let me pass. And when I plead and wept; 

Told them I had come far amid the storm, was tired and dis- 
tressed, 

They only smiled and said, "none but the righteous enter here; 

If thou art righteous come; if not thou still must journey on." 

I slowly turned away, well-nigh despairing; 

Hope within me nearly dead; when lo, I saw a light 

In the far distance. I whipped my jaded powers; 

I gathered up the last remains of my fast waning strength. 

And set my feet within the radiant path made by yon distant light. 

And when I reached the spot it proved to be another gate; 

But it was opened wide, and angels glided in and out; 

And when they saw me coming forth they came to meet me, 

And to give me welcome. "What is this place," I asked — 

Wondering that to a stranger such kindness should be showr. 

"This is the gate of Mercy," they replied; "and it is never shut 

By night or day. Angels of Mercy all are we; 

And yonder is the house of Mercy, having many rooms. 

He who owns it built it for such as you. We bid you welcome 
in His name. 

Tou ask for shelter; you shall have that and more; 

For this is not a refuge only, but a home. 

You sought for safety; you shall have fellowship beside. 

You wanted rest; the Master gives you rest and love; 

And in this House of Mercy you shall abide 

Forever and forevermore." 

This was my dream. And when I woke 

I knew the dream was true. 

And from my grateful heart I poured forth praise 

To Him whose boundless Mercy took me in 

And made me glad, when Holiness and Justice shut their gate.- 

And would not give me shelter from the storm. 

And as long as life shall last I'll tell my dream 

To every pilgrim who has lost his way; 

That all may know as I do now, 

The everlasting Mercy of our gracious God. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 65 

CHAPTER V. 

THE SPIRIT OF THE DEFENDANTS. 

Defendant B. H. Carroll said in print that "The meeting at 
San Antonio was the most spirit-guided meeting since the council 
at Jerusalem. The Jerusalem council settled matters of doc- 
trine: that at San Antonio, matters of polity." The followers re- 
peated it. 

Something of the "spirit-guided" nature of the Defendants 
will appear by the following undisputed statements: 

"At the Southern Baptist Convention, Wilmington, N. C, 1897, 
Dr. A. J. Holt approached me with trepidation and warned me 
against a threatened murderous assault of B. H. Carroll's sons." 

Defendant C. C. Carroll Boasts of His Pistol. 

Waco, Texas, April 9, 1898. 

Dr. S. A. Hayden, Dallas, Texas: Dear Sir — We heard Charlie 
Carroll (Rev. C. C. Carroll) assert in the presence of others 
that he was armed with a pistol when he sought an opportunity 
to thrash you at the Texas Baptist Convention held at Houston 
in 1896. Very respectfully, A. B. Staten, R. W. Lamkin. 

Mr. Staten is a nephew of Dr. R. C. Burleson and Mr. Lamkin 
is a son of Defendant L. D. Lamkin, who was called on by 
President R. C. Buckner to pray for me at Waco (1898), after 
J. M. Robertson had read the charges. My friends had been 
requested by President Buckner to "sit down, squat down, lie 
down or go out till the affirmative had been taken," which many 
of them did, and then before they could possibly return he took 
the negative vote, refusing to let the vote be counted. And I 
was declared by him to be excluded. Then as an act of charity 
I was at the request of President R. C. Buckner carried to the 
throne of disgrace and laid there by "Reverend" L. D. Lamkin, 
the others of the Beard uttering a pious (?) Amen! 

Defendant A. M. Prather, who acquiesced in the Confession of 
Judgment by J. B. Cranfill, in the presence of prominent citizens 
in Dallas, including W. I. Addison, Deacon of the First Baptist 
Church, Oak Cliff, and Dr. R. C. Rankin, Editor of the Texas 
Christian Advocate, threatened to "take a shotgun and blow 



66 THE COMPLETE 

out the brains of S. A. Hayden." It was nothing uncommon for 
Board Party preachers of the more enthusiastic sort to express 
the opinion that "it would be a Godsend if some one would take 
a shotgun and blow S. A. Hayden's brains out." J. B. Cranfill 
asserted in the presence of prominent Board Party people, in- 
cluding Dr. J. H. Luther and others, that he, Cranfill, was con- 
templating "taking a shotgun, going to Dallas and blowing S. A. 
Hayden's brains out." 

Threats of bloodshed by Board Party leaders and their less 
thoughtful followers were not exceptional, but common. It indi- 
cated the violent spirit that had been instilled into their minds. 
In all this the Conspirators claimed to be "Guided by the Holy 
Spirit." 

Sacrilege like this drives me to a mightier plea. 

Cathgart says: 

"In the six hundred years of its existence, the Inquisition in 
Spain and in other countries sacrificed myriads of lives with the 
most atrocious cruelties; it has racked many millions more, and 
the torture was generally applied to the very utmost verge of 
life, the physician hired by the Holy Office holding the patient 
by the wrist to discover the exact amount of agony he could bear 
without destroying existence. It has crippled millions whom it 
set at liberty, some of whom it declared innocent after plant- 
ing its pains all over their bodies; it has robbed its victims of 
property, for the sake of which exclusively, persecutions fre- 
quently began, too great to be represented by figures. And 
when we try to conceive the woes of its lonely victims in their 
dark cells; the anguished hearts of loved ones who could hear 
nothing of them; the terror and pain of the hall of tortures; 
infamy of wearing the Sanbenito; the penury and insults heaped 
on the children and grandchildren of victims — the aggregate 
imperfectly imagined, shocks and horrifies us." 

The parallellism is striking. The Texas Conspiracy has noi 
been without compensation in clarifying Baptist principles. 

So too the Inquisition accomplished some good. Of an irritable 
man, a certain person said to his enemy: "Do not be too 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 67 

severe with him, he is useful for one thing; he is capital for 
trying patience and strengthening it, and finding out where there 
is any. So the Inquisition has exhibited some of the finest 
specimens of Christian heroism in the annals of earth or the 
records of heaven. In its court room and torture hall, and at 
its executions, lights were uncovered that have flashed over 
Christendom; that shall flood all time; lights which have blinded 
the eyes of inquisitors and executioners, and which have enabled 
timid Christians to see their Master's blood, love and power, 
and read their title clear to mansions in the skies. Thousands 
and tens of thousands of the saints of Jesus, like Marie Bohor- 
ques, showed the utmost contempt for suffering; the most extra- 
ordinary love for the crucified One; the possession of a heaven- 
given faith which bone-breaking racks could not crush, nor blaz- 
ing faggots waste. Like the swimming cork, which floats on 
the brook a few inches deep and upon the crest of the greatest 
wave that ever rode in angry majesty over ocean beds, too 
deep for a created fathoming line, so in the light displayed by 
the woes of the Inquisition, the Christian sees a faith that will 
float him over the shallow waters of common troubles, and on 
the highest peak of the mightiest mountain billow of distress that 
ever rolled in threatening fury over the ocean of life. 

All this tolerated even now by men who call themselves 
Baptists because they won't support the "organized work!" Men 
for petty salaries lent themselves to this work in support, they 
said, of the "Servants," their leaders. 

Among the heavenly bodies the lesser yield themselves to 
the influence of the greater with perfect order and harmony; 
and thus among men (Jesuits), should the inferiors allow them- 
selves to be carried forward by the will of the superior, so that 
the virtue of the upper may permeate the lower spheres. 

"This spirit of obe.dience, as if demanded by God himself, in 
the main, has governed the Jesuits." So says Cathgart. 

These statements are equally applicable to the followers of 

the Board Party leaders in Texas. It is appalling to think of it. 

• When Paul V. wanted the Jesuits to undertake some choral 



68 THE COMPLETE 

service, from which their constitution relieved them, they strong- 
ly protested against such duties, and informed him that "Their 
society had been established to repel the injurious efforts of the 
heretics, to oppose the infernal strategems which had been 
employed to extinguish the light of Catholic truth, and to re- 
sist the barbarous enemies of Christ, who were besieging the 
holy edifice of the Church, undermining it insensibly." (Nicco- 
lini's "History of the Jesuits.") The Jesuit is a papal detective 
and warrior, born to fight the hosts of Protestantism. No 
system of religion under heaven has a body of ecclesiastical 
soldiers expressly intended to fight the enemies of its institu- 
tions except the papacy and the brief-lived Board Party of 
Texas. The analogy is too striking for mistake. 

"Schools from the beginning were prime instrumentalities 
with the Jesuits. No American citizen regarding education as 
one of the chief bulwarks of his country's liberties could take a 
livelier interest in the instruction of the young than the Jesuits. 
Only that with the disciples of Loyola, the question was not 
the extension of knowledge by proper agencies, but for instruc- 
tion imparted in their colleges they had the highest regard. It 
placed at their disposal abundant material out of which to select 
talented sons for Loyola; this was the primary cause of their 
enthusiasm as teachers. It gave them immense influence over 
the whole future of young nobles and princes, whose culture 
they sought and imparted. And in their splendid schools they 
did, for a long time, train up a large number of the future rulers 
of Europe, who cherished a profound regard for their teachers." 

This spirit is true to a T of the policy of the Board party 
leaders in Texas. They "correlated" the schools at Brownwood, 
Belton, Decatur, Greenville, Rusk, by fair means or foul, not in 
love of education, but in love of -power. Their largest givers 
and most influential leaders were really illiterate who neither 
prized nor comprehended what education in its broader, better 
sense, implied. The largest sums of money they got was con- 
science money paid in by licentiousness itself, whom the better 
element helped partly because they did not know the facts and 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 69 

partly because they did not want to know. Every young man 
who entered these schools was specially indoctrinated in Board 
Partyism and his zeal in their cause encouraged by the fostering 
in his mind of the sentiment of gain, position or power. It might 
be wrong, certain measures, but then it was essential to the 
preservation of "the organized work." This was a common, 
almost universal, plea of those who surrendered their minds 
and consciences to the Leaders. 

Addiction to the "machine" iif all usurped organizations, 
good and bad, has made such sad defections from truth and right 
not only possible, but common. Go back to the early centuries 
of Christianity. 

Dr. Hezekiah Jenkins, in his prefa.ce to the Apochrypal New 
Testament, says: 

"But the Editor has been charged with expressing too little 
veneration for the Councils of the Church. He feels none. It is 
true that respecting the three hundred Bishops assembled at 
the Council of Nice, the Emperor Constantine says, that what 
was approved by these Bishops could be nothing less than the 
determination of God himself; since the Holy Spirit, residing 
in such great and worthy souls, unfolded to them the divine will. 
Yet Sabinus, the Bishop of Heraclea, affirms that, 'excepting 
Constantine himself, and Eusebius Pamphilus, they were a set 
of illiterate, simple creatures that understood nothing;' and 
Pappus seems to have estimated them very low, for in his Synod 
icon to that Council he tells us that, having 'promiscuously put 
all the books that were referred to the Council for determination 
under a communion table in a church, they besought the Lord 
that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the 
spurious ones remained underneath, and that it happened ac- 
cordingly.' A commentator on this legend suggests that nothing 
less than such a sight could sanctify that fiery zeal which breathes 
throughout an edict published by Constantine, in which he de- 
crees that all the writings of Arius should be burned, and that 
any person concealing any writing composed by him, and not im- 
mediately producing it and committing it to the flames, should 



70 THECOMPLETE 

be punished with death. Let us, with the illustrious Jortin, con- 
sider a Council called and presided over by this barbarian 
founder of the church militant: — by what various motives the 
various Bishops may have been influenced; as by reverence to 
the Emperor, or to his councillors and favorites, his slaves and 
eunuchs; by the fear of offending some great prelate, as a Bishop 
of Rome or of Alexandria, who had it in his power to insult, 
vex and plague all the Bishops within and without his jurisdic- 
tion; by the dread of passing for heretics, and of being calumi- 
nated, reviled, hated, anathematized, excommunicated, impris- 
oned, banished, fined, beggared, starved, if they refused to sub- 
mit; by the compliance with some active, leading and imperious 
spirits; by a deference to the majority; by a love of dictating 
and domineering, of applause and respect; by vanity and ambi- 
tion; by a total ignorance of the question in debate, or a total 
indifference about it; by private friendships; by enmity and re- 
sentment; by hopes of gain; by an indolent disposition; by good 
nature; by the fatigue of attending, and a desire to be at home; 
by the love of peace and quiet; and a hatred of contention, etc. 
Whoever takes these things into due consideration will not be 
disposed to pay a blind deference to the authority of General 
Councils, but will rather be inclined to judge that 'the Council 
held by the Apostles at Jerusalem was the first and last in which 
the Holy Spirit may be affirmed to have presided.' " 

It may be and often has been said, and no doubt thought 
oftener than spoken, that if so many preachers can be led in this 
wild race for pelf, power or position, there must be very few 
faithful men or else the facts are not as decided by courts and 
juries and the popular verdict. And the Defendants have sought 
this alternate way of escape. "Baptists" complainingly say they 
'never did fare well in the courts." In civil courts Baptists 
always did fare well. It is the ecclesiastical courts that have 
always been the bane of Baptists from Paul's appeal to Caesar 
to the Dallas litigations, from the Jewish Council which cried, 
"Crucify Him! crucify Him!" to the San Antonio caucuses which 
cried, "Down him! down him!" Such a spirit comes only from 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 71 

the miasma of all the weaknesses and passions of human nature, 
reverence for "the organized work," representing in the minds of 
the weak, Missions, which they were told could be preserved 
only by the adoption of the challenge, the securement of pas 
toral salaries, the dread of ostracism, the odium of anti-mission 
ism, which they were all told Reform represented, the charge 
too, that "whoever opposed the methods of missions opposed mis 
sions itself," and per consequence would be expelled themselves 
the promotion of the unemployed who had never been able to 
get work, and indeed every human weakness and passion in the 
whole catalogue of human infirmity. Under these influences some 
who had been foremost in their denunciations of Board Partyism 
stepped to the front and showed the utmost zeal. It was the 
most pitiable spectacle the human mind ever looked upon. Two 
instances will serve to illustrate: Rev. J. B. Riddle and Rev. T. 
L. Scruggs, whose denunciations of the Defendants Carroll by 
name and extravagance in general, were violent beyond exagger- 
ation, voted for the Challenge and received at once a supple- 
ment out of the Mission fund which they drew as a stipend for 
several years. Rev. S. C. Bailey, whose articles against the ex- 
travagance of the Carrolls were so severe that one of them was 
cited in court as one of "Hayden's lies," and read as proof that 
the Convention's life was dependent on the exclusion of Plain- 
tiff, even S. C. Bailey was given an appointment which he holds 
perhaps to this day. 

The influence on the weaker element of the ministry was 
appalling. Some resented the offer of position on condition of 
their change of principle, such as W. I. McClung, J. W. Brewer, 
L. R. Scruggs and many others. But the love of money, the 
fear of losing appointment or the hope of gaining it, gave the 
Board Party who used the conscience money of Defendant Slaugh- 
ter and the stolen money of Defendent Cranfill, great power. 
Every man who would accept it was at once provided for. Defend- 
ant Gambrell, whose whole life had been taken up in place- 
hunting, knew the power of money and plied it with skill. His 
method was to approach a Church Party man somewhat after this 



72 THE COMPLETE 

fashion: "Bro. A, I like you. You could be very useful if you 
were on the right side of this question. You have gifts that 
ought to be employed in a better cause. You have been misled. 
I would like to see you doing all you could. You can never do 
anything for yourself or for the cause where you are. If you 
were on the right side you could accomplish great good," etc. 
If he bit, he gave him position and increase of income as he had 
promised. If he resented the indelicacy, he denied, or said the 
brother did not understand him, etc. These influences were all 
at work and kept up for years. It was a touchstone that re- 
vealed the characters of men. He declared that "the brethren 
should study the wisdom of the politician," and openly announced 
that "the way to get a hen off her nest was to show her a 
better one" — that is, one with golden eggs in it. He will longest 
be remembered in Texas as "The Baptist Nester." 

The same laws that acted in the Inquisition were productive 
in the Conspiracy. 

"Then in their colleges," says Cathgart, "an education was 
given surpassing any Protestant institution accessible to large 
numbers of that faith; and many parents who detested Roman- 
ism, on the assurance of the unctuous fathers that the faith of 
their sons would receive no interference, were confiding enough 
to entrust their dear ones to the training of men who were 
Jesuits, that they might fight Protestantism." This state of 
things existed in Texas when Jacksonville College was founded 
at Jacksonville and The Texas Baptist University was founded 
at Dallas. Defendants Gambrell and Truett urged the citizens 
not to encourage it. In Texas as in Spain the worst licentious- 
ness was condoned by many. "The royal profligate and his 
mistress, the high-handed criminal of noble birth, the working 
embodiment of all vices, had the popular confessor from the 
college of Loyola. His master had received in the cave at the 
commencement of his holy life the power of healing troubled 
consciences, and every follower of Ignatius inherited the remedy. 
This balm was nothing else than treating enormous sins as if 
they were trifles, and the granting of absolution for them on 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 73 

condition that a light penance should be performed." This re- 
corded of the Jesuits is true of the Defendants. 

Peter Navarre declares that, "By the universal consent of the 
Jesuits it is lawful to kill the caluminator if there be no other 
way of averting the affront." It was a common thing for these 
defenders of the organized work to say, "It would be a Godsend 
if a train would crush Hayden, or some one would blow his brains 
out." "The only misfortune in the double shots on the sleeper 
is that Cranfill missed him." This is common. 

Father Baldelle, as quoted by Escobar, says: "You may law- 
fully take the life of another for saying, 'You have told a lie,' if 
there is not other ways of shutting his mouth." That was the 
plea in Texas. 

You must not criticise the officers of the organized work. "To 
criticise the workers is to criticise the work." (B. H. Carroll.) 

Father Lamy says: "An ecclesiastic or a monk may warrant- 
ably kill a monk or a defamer, who threatens to publish the 
scandalous crimes of his community, or his own crimes, when 
there is no other way of stopping him." 

Father Bauny says: "A person asks a soldier to beat his 
neighbor, or to set fire to the barn of a man who has injured him. 
In the absence. of the soldier is the man who employed him bound 
to make good the damage? My opinion is that he is not. For 
one can be bound to make restitution where there has been no 
violation of justice; and is justice violated by asking another to 
do us a favor?" 

Escobar says: "Promises are not binding when the person, 
in making them, did not intend to bind himself." 

Again Father Bauny says: "Absolution may be given even to 
him who candidly avows that the hope of being absolved induced 
him to sin with more freedom than he would otherwise have 
done." (Pascal's "Provincial Letters.") 

Thus Defendant B. H. Carroll, who had convicted Defendant 
R. T. Hanks in 1889 of immoral conduct, in 1897, being his co- 
defendant, promoted him. 

"The true Jesuit is a man of devout aspect. Not gloomy, not 



74 THE COMPLETE 

scornful, but presenting the appearance of holy and loving sim- 
plicity. The pictures of Loyola, Lainez, Xavier, Aquinas, Ricci, 
La Chase and Francis Borgia are before us. They look like 
saints of unusual spirituality of mind, men living above all selfish 
passions and earthly considerations. Their faces insinuate an 
idea of their sanctity and kindness." This can hardly be said 
of some of the Defendants, especially of Defendants Gambrell, 
Hatcher, Carroll, Sr., and some others. 

"The spies are a kind of fifth order." They are rewarded 
by good positions where the Jesuits have influence, by great lib- 
erality in pardoning their sins, or by money if it is needed. This 
class, mixing with all conditions of men, report the affairs of the 
world to the followers of Ignatius." (Nicolini's "History of the 
Jesuits," p. 268.) 

Witness the "supplements" in Texas. Money or position was 
being freely but adroitly tendered those who were thought pur- 
chasable as withnessed by L. R. Scruggs, J. W. Brewer, W. I. 
McClung and others and by the promotion of those who accepted 

the offers which were effectually held out to all. It has been 
i 

done in Texas to an incredible degree. 

Shall all this darken our hope or dim our faith in God? No. 
It rather strengthens our confidence in God. He is working out 
a great problem in the loom of His providential history. We 
cannot see all the bright side now. We see as in a glass 
darkly. But we shall see face to face. Oh, glorious Savior, Thou- 
canst pardon the worst and the hardest. And this mystery of 
grace we shall at last understand. 



Where is thine arm, O vengeance? where therod 
That smote the foes of Zion and of God? 
That crushed proud Ammon when his iron car 
Was yoked in wrath, and thundered from afar? 
Dwell deep! The little things that chafe and fret, 

Oh, waste not golden hours to give them heed! 
The slight, the thoughtless wrong do thou forget; 

Be self-forgot in serving other's need! 

Thou faith in God through love for man shalt keep. 

Dwell deep, my soul, dwell deep! 

Dwell deep! forego the pleasure if it bring 

Neglect of duty; consecrate each thought! 
Believe thou in the good of everything, 

And trust that all unto the wisest end is wrought; 

Bring thou this comfort unto all who weep. 

Dwell deep, my soul, dwell deep! 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 75 

CHAPTER VI. 
The Gates Ajar. 

But this Pamphlet, "Important Information Concerning Two 
Board Meetings," left the gates ajar. It revealed the fact that 
Secretary Cranfill's "Expenses could not be definitely ascer- 
tained." "For 1890 it was stated by Dr. Cranfill to be (including 
salary) over $6,000." And "In 1891, $6,500!" Secretary Holt's 
salary and expenses had been about $3,000 per annum! This for 
precisely the same work. 

What was still more significant, in "A Comparison of Collec- 
tions and Expenditures" by Holt, Cranfill and Carroll, made tc 
justify J. M. Carroll's extravagance, Cranfill's last six months, 
from October 5, 1891, to April 5, 1892, was skipped! Not a scratch 
of a pen, not a word in print, not the slightest hint on that six 
months was anywhere to be found! This brought into the melee 
a new issue! 

At the Marshall Convention, October, 1894, Dr. R. C. Burleson, 
S. J. Anderson, H. B. Pender and S. A. Hayden offered a Minority 
Report to the Board, asking Secretary Cranfill to show his books 
They insisted on it in the Convention. It took a whole day. He 
said he had his books; though he swore, four years later, that 
he did not have his books at Marshall. They were lost, accord 
ing to his sworn statement, in 1892! He was completely caught. 

On the last Trial, 1902, he swore "All my books were lost in 
October, 1892, and not found till September, 1896." How could 
he have them at Marshall in 1894? Newspaper articles were writ- 
ten by many brethren, covering two years, urging a report. The 
Carrolls now vouched for the "accuracy and honesty of Cranfill's 
accounts," although they had stated before witnesses A. J. Holt 
H. W. Smith, and others, that they "Could make neither heads 
nor tails out of Cranfill's books." And Secretary Carroll refused 
to receive them, and never did receive them. 

In April, 1896, Secretary John T. Battle said he had audited 
Dr. Cranfill's report at Belton in 1892, and that his reports 
showed "from all sources $13,561.31." Of this amount, it was 
ascertained, only about $8,000 belonged to that six months, a sum 



76 THECOMPLETE 

about equal to the "Co-operative" work of that period. This indi- 
cated that for six months he actually kept all the cash! By com- 
paring the years next preceding and the next following, it was 
shown that his accounts were short about $10,000! 

That pompous Pamphlet prepared by a plot to blind the people 
had left the gates ajar, revealing a looted treasury! 

It was later ascertained that not only one, but all, his books 
were "lost" — "Missionary Reports;" his "Journal," in which he 
entered receipts as they came in, and his "Ledger," in which he 
posted his receipts and disbursements, three in all! "All lost!" 
In September, 1896, four and one-half years later, his "Ledger" 
(so reputed) was reported "found," and at the Convention at 
Houston, Defendant R. T. Hanks was appointed Chairman of a 
Committee to examine this reputed "Ledger." He wrote and 
brought in a report pronouncing Crannll's books "correct," and 
declaring that anyone hereafter calling them in question would 
"convict himself of dishonorable conduct." 

The whole theory of the Defendants was expressed coarsely, 
but tersely: "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yourn." 

It Was a "Transcript." 

The book from which this sham report was made was not 
genuine at all, but was a "Transcript" in four or five several 
handwritings, including, as stated above, amounts not belonging 
to the collections of that six months, but padded out to make the 
sum of "$13,561.31 from all sources." The padded items taken 
out, left only about $8,000 for that six months. But "Co-operative 
work" would have equaled or exceeded this amount. Secretary 
T. M. Carroll's last six months of the same year, from April to 
October, 1892, reports "Co-operative Work, $10,637.57." This was 
the very same year. Indeed, Secretary Crannll had not only 
taken the entire cash collections for that year, but he had ap- 
propriated to his own private use the "$2,662.91" on hand at the 
close of the precbding year. Besides, J. M. Carroll paid J. B. 
Crannll, after Crannll had gone out of office, "$2,500 to pay mis- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 77 

sionaries," of which no account has ever been given, receipts 
shown, or missionaries named. 

Why Was Publicity Offensive? 

The thoughtful reader will now see why the "Publicity" oi 
all Board Reports and transactions, proposed in the Reform Pa- 
per, was so offensive to, and counted as "Attacks on the Carrolls, 
Cranfill and the Board!" They had thrown the "Aegis" of the 
Board and the Mantle of Missions over Cranfill's accounts, locked 
shields for his protection, proclaimed him an innocent and per- 
secuted man, brandished their swords, and swore that for him 
and the mission cause they would spend their last drop of 
blood! It was a spectacle to make mortals blush and angels 
weep. 

A New Move. 

The Houston Convention, 1896, was the occasion for a new 
move. An attempt, led by Defendant B. H. Carroll, was made to 
expel Plaintiff from the Convention. It failed; and after three 
days' trial, sacrificing the work of the Convention for the grati- 
fication of carnal nature, a "Mandate" was adopted. 

Defendant Gambrell, the then Senior Editor of the Baptist 
Standard, came from Atlanta, Ga., and took an active part as a 
lobbyist in the Houston meeting. M. D. Early, at Defendant B. H. 
Carroll's request, was re-elected Secretary, with the promise, as 
stated by B. H. Carroll privately, that Early would "decline." 
But the Convention adjourned (to meet at Weatherford) before 
he "declined." This left the appointment of a Secretary in the 
hands of the Board. They elected J. B. Gambrell, but retained 
Early to the close of the calendar year, December 31, paying 
salaries both to Gambrell and Early at the same time. At the 
end of the year, Early went out. It was not until the following 
April that it came to the knowledge of the public that, in addi- 
tion to the salary of $1,800 fixed by the Convention, the Carrolls 
and others of the Board Party were paying Gambrell $700 "on 
the side." The publication of this in The Texas Baptist Herald 



78 THE COMPLETE. 

gave the Carrolls great offense. It was an "attack on the Board 
and an effort to injure missions!" 

The Hanks Whitewash Revealed. 

Following the Houston Convention, October, 1896, to March, 
1897, Defendant made no reference to CranfiU's accounts. The 
report of Hanks was generally known to be a shameful white- 
wash. 

About this time letters came to Plaintiff from CranfiU's friends 
saying an "Apology was due to Brother Cranfill through The 
Texas Baptist Herald," and urging Plaintiff to make it! Cran- 
fiU's sham accounts had been corkscrewed out of him by Drs. 
Burleson, Pender, Anderson and Plaintiff, and had been led into 
the snare of publishing them in the Minutes of the Houston Con- 
vention. Plaintiff at once submitted these sham "accounts'" 
"cooked books" as the lawyers called them, to two eminent ex- 
pert bookkeepers in different parts of the State, who examined 
them separately, and without each other's knowledge, and pro- 
nounced them "unintelligible" and "no satisfactory account of 
his work." The statements of the distinguished accountants, both 
occupying the highest positions, awakened a new interest, even 
a sensation. 

A Change of Venue. 

From this time, excitement ran higher and higher. The Church 
Nearly two months before the meeting to be held at Weather- 
ford, Board Party leaders, George W. Baines, J. B. Gambrell, 
R. T. Hanks and B. H. Carroll, began to write letters and pay 
visits to Weatherford, telling the brethren there of the perils that 
awaited them if they entertained the Convention, etc.! 

The Weatherford Church, numbering some 300 members, dis- 
couraged by these representations, met and declined to receive 
Party sentiment was largely in the majority. Everybody was 
and opposition to Extravagance, Nepotism, Favoritism and the 
payment of $700 to the Secretary* while forbidding presents to 
missionaries, "who were living o$ starvation salaries." 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 79 

the Convention, by a vote of 11 to 8, the rest not voting. Then 
the Board fixed the Convention at Temple! But it soon trans- 
pired that Temple was acceptable to the Church Party, because, 
although tarther off, yet two trunk lines running through Temple 
made it practicable to charter trains at $1,000 each, capable of 
carrying 1,000 messengers. The trains were chartered and ad- 
vertised. 

It was the policy of Secretary Gambrell to withhold all defin- 
ite information about rates so as to leave messengers from the 
country Churches living at a distance from the railroad sta- 
tions uncertain as to cost of tickets. But the chartering of these 
trains discomfited that plan. 

The next move was to carry the Convention to San Antonio 
which could not be reached by excursion trains. But although 
this involved a loss to Church Party messengers in North Texas 
in railroad fares alone, of from $5,000 to $10,000, yet they pre- 
pared to meet the emergency and go to this remote point. No 
definite information in the meantime was given by Secretary 
Gambrell as to railroad rates, although the railroads furnished 
him with the exact cost of tickets from every railroad station in 
the State which he withheld from the people saying to the mes- 
sengers, "call on your nearest ticket agent for rates." This in 
Churches ten to twenty miles from the railroad, was exceeding- 
ly embarrassing to the messengers. The fare had run up from 
$1 to $10, $15, $18 for each messenger to be ascertained by him 
after he left home and reached his nearest station to find per- 
haps that he did not have money enough to spare to pay for 
his ticket. But an unwonted enthusiasm was rife and some of 
the Churches furnished their messengers with money to cover 
expenses to the Convention. 

They Now Resort to Caucuses. 

When the Convention met at San Antonio, according to J. B 
Gambrell's sworn statement, the Board Party leaders were "in 
doubt as to which side had the majority." Fearing the result, 



80 THE COMPLETE 

they caucused Thursday night and again Friday night, and final- 
ly in view of the uncertainty of numbers, and as it had been ar- 
ranged to announce that free entertainment would be withdrawn 
Saturday, and the Church Party messengers would thereby be 
forced to leave, it was agreed in caucus that the Challenge which 
Defendant R T. Hanks had written, should be held up until the 
close of the Convention Monday night, when the Church Party 
messengers had left and the Board Party messengers remaining, 
could be sure of a "Majority." This statement was made on oath 
by G. W. Walton, then a Board Party man, who was in the caucus 
and under misrepresentations made to him, voted for the Chal- 
lenge, but whose high sense of justice prompted him, on informa- 
tion later received, to denounce the wickedness of the scheme 
into which he, like many other innocent persons, had been lured, 
and although not a Defendant, yet for truth's sake voluntarily 
turned State's Evidence in the interest of truth and justice. 

This brings us to the close of the San Antonio Convention, 
an account of which is set forth in the Testimony. 

And to me it all "happened." With God it was all, except the 
sinful element, designed. The flotsam of truth surviving, the 
jetsam of error goes down. So I regard my connection with it. 
By heredity I was born for it. I did not go into it voluntarily. I 
was born in it. By grace, except the carnal element, I was guid- 
ed and sustained in it, I feel it an honor at any price of hardschip 
or loss to ride in on the grace of Gratitude. Rather 



I envy not in any moods 

The captive void of noble rage, 
The linnet born within the cage, 

That never knew the summer woods. 

1 envy not the beast that takes 
His license in the field of time, 
Unfetter'd by the sense of crime, 

To whom a conscience never wakes. 



Nor what may count itself as blest, 
The heart that never plighted troth, 
But stagnates in the weeds of sloth: 

Nor any want-begotten rest. 

I hold it true, what'er befall; 

I feel it, when I sorrow most; 

'Tis better to have loved and lost 
Than never to have loved at all. 



CONSPIRACY TBIAL 81 

CHAPTER VII. 
CONFLUENT CAUSES. 

In all histories like this more or less of human passion enters, 
no matter how hard one strives to keep it out. In this book every 
effort to be impartial, truthful and fair has been made and that, 
too, with a constant consciousness of the almost unavoidable 
bankruptcy of human nature. This precaution has been a large 
factor in the delay of this volume. But caution has not been 
the sole cause of delay. Every week and month has developed 
some confirmation of what has been previously known, which 
new developments helped to overcome, by other testimony than 
the trial itself, the incredulity inherent in the minds of good 
men and women. One of these recurrent confirmations comes 
to light at and since the Convention at Dallas, November, 1905, 
which removes from every honest, intelligent mind the doubt 
of that often denied proposition that the whole Conspiracy lay 
in the puerile ambition of Defendant B. H. Carroll to be Presi- 
dent of Baylor University, for which he had absolutely no capac- 
ity, in scholastic education, in experience or in power of adminis- 
tration. It has already been shown how he had time and again 
been "shooed down" from the "roost pole" by which he was 
climbing to the Presidential chair of Baylor University. Every 
disinterested, intelligent Baptist knows this to be true. But 
his special followers, beneficiaries and innocent friends would 
*not believe it. At every Convention he addressed his brethren 
"for the last time." The mists gathered in their eyes while 
he told them he saw the "bright armor of the shining battalions 
on the other shore." The self-sacrifice which he always pro- 
fessed in these premature post obits were always symbolized 
by his "prostrate form" on which he invited them all to please 
walk so only they would carry safely over on this footlog impro- 
vised himself, the Organized Work. He was so consumed of a 
holy zeal and endowed with a double portion of knowledge re- 
ceived like Apostle Dowie's celestial messages, direct from 
Heaven in answer to his prayers and exceptional communion 



82 THE COMPLETE 

with the other world, that his apotheosis was, by his devoted 
mends, expected at any time! It was a scene for either the 
laughing or the crying philosopher — the disciples of Democritua 
for smiles; of Carroll, for tears. 

Generalities are obscure until itemized into particulars. A 
practical illustration of this annual farcical death scene for the 
supplemented saints is here given in two parts — first, historic 
verity; second, illustration. For the first part, the literal truth 
is vouched. For the second part, it is characteristically and 
truthfully illustrative 

Scene, Waco. Time, 1898: Dramatis Persona, Defendant B 
H. Carroll. 

At the Convention at Waco in 1898 Defendant B. H. Carroll 
delivered the "Address of Welcome." He was in the very pink 
of health, full-fleshed, redolent, plethoric. His voice was full 
and his lips, under a heavy beard, glowed, to eyes at a point to 
view them, with red vitality. No man perhaps was ever in 
better health. His "Address of Welcome" he made the occas- 
ion of anonymously prosecuting the Plaintiff, who, according to 
a caucus held in the State House Hotel the night before, was 
to be challenged. After a few preliminary remarks, the address 
turned, as usual, upon himself. He spoke substantially as fol- 
lows: 

"Brethren, I want you to be careful in all your acts in this 
Convention. Take no steps, beloved, except as you may be (as 
I always am, you know) 'Guided by the Holy Cpirit' I have* 
prayed for this hour. I have sunk my mind in the mind of Gou. 
I have lost my very heart in the heart of God. We are in perfect 
accord. This is the last time I shall ever meet with this Conven- 
tion. (Mist.) I shall never address you again. (Tears.) I 
may not even finish this address of welcome before the summons 
comes. (More tears.) My physician has told me I may drop dead 
at any moment and that I certainly cannot live another year. 
(Handkerchiefs.) I am standing in view of the unseen world!! 
I see the shining battalions and my vision catches glimpses 
of their serried files. (Bl clear implication they are opening 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 83 

their ranks to give him a royal reception.) (Sobs.) The baton 
of the Heavenly choir is visible to eyes acute enough (like mine) 
co see it. (Nasal manifestations.) 'Hail to the Chief is audible 
to ears acute enough to hear it. (More nasal manifestations.) 
But don't neglect your duty." (to expel Hayden.) ! ! ! 

It was like the case of the Irishman who dreaded the cat. 
He was in the habit of getting drunk and beating his wife. She 
bore it as long as she could, and when she could bear it no 
longer she sent for the priest and told him the story of her woe. 
Her face was blue from her drunken husband's blows. The 
priest's indignation was at its highest when she finished, at 
which juncture Pat appeared on the scene, drunk. "Pathrick," 
said the indignant priest, "you're dhrunk, and you're in the 
'abit of coming 'home and bating your wife. It's got to sthop. 
If iver you get dhrunk again I'll know it, whether I see you 
or not, and I'll turn you into a rhat." This shocked Pat greatly 
and he crossed himself, invoked the aid of the Holy Virgin, and 
resolved never to drink again. And for a time he kept his vow. 
But one day, meeting some convivial friends, he got drunk again 
and went home. His wife saw him coming and ran behind the 
bed, crying. "Niver moind, Biddy,, me darlint," exclaimed Pat, 
"I'll niver bate ye any more. You know I'm dhrunk and the 
praste knows it and he'll turn me into a rhat. Now, Biddy, dar- 
lint, plase, when ye see the hair coming cut on me hands with 
me eyes getting little and me nose sharp and me ears turning 
up, fer God's sake keep an eye on the cat." 

The farewell dying "Address of Welcome" sums up simply 
into this: : ^ 1 

"Brethren of the supplements, I am going to die right off. 
The only request I have to leave with you is for God's sake keep 
an eye on Hayden. He has exposed Bro. Jimmie for paying his 
Accident Life Insurance policy out of the Mission fund, $50 a 
month for our nephew as stenographer, and still another nephew 
for something else, and our neice $1.00 a day as her services 
are required, besides his brother-in-law at $75.00 a month as 
bookkeeper for one day's work in the week, $20.00 a month for 



84 THE COMPLETE 

one room in his home for an "Office," all paid out of the Mission 
fund. Hayden has found all this out, which we tried to keep 
secret lest if konwn it might hurt our oganized work. Hayden 
has found out, or will, I fear, that Bro. Jimmie has had all this 
nepotism made easy by our friend J. B. Crannll, whom in turn 
we paid $30.00 every Sunday, besides $2500.00 in cash to pay 
missionaries, for which we have no vouchers nor even their 
names, not one of them — all out of the Mission fund. And now 
Dr. Burleson, to whom 'nature has administered the black drop, 
(thank God!) joins Hayden in this work of exposure. It is nor 
to be borne. When I'm gone, and especially while I live, for 
mercy's sake keep an eye on Hayden." 

Then he shifted his tobacco and told them again that he 
still saw "the shining battalions" and heard the band picking 
the harp strings, getting ready to play "Hail to the Chief of the 
Supplements." 

From the high rapture he enjoyed at that moment it was 
plain that Heaven was open to receive him. 

Nothing but heart trouble could give this melodramatic 
scene even the semblance of credibility. But the "supplements" 
a spectacle for smiles or tears according to one's 
point of view, to see them wipe their weeping eyes. The ad- 
dress, longer than dying scenes usually are, being ended, after 
appointing, by arrangement of the "Leaders," Defendant Hanks 
Chairman of the "Credentials Committee," the Convention ad- 
journed for dinner. 

Then came the criticisms of the "Welcome Address" by the 
"Judases," "the Devil's Sidetrackers" and their "Lieutenants:" 
"Did you ever witness such hypocrisy in mortal man?" 'Ic 
was the most shocking piece of manifest duplicity I ever heard." 
"Was the man not afraid he would fall down dead sure enough 
while acting out that deception!" "Such irreverence!" "I had 
nad heard it often before but this exceeded all former efforts!" 
"For a man, a preacher, to go through such a farce, using the 
Holy Spirit's name in such a travesty, borders on blasphemy!' 
"The only difference between his pretensions and the blasphemy 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 85 

of the Pharisees of old was that they ascribed the works of 
Christ to Beelzebub, while Carroll ascribes the work of Beelze- 
bub to the Holy Spirit!" Etc., etc., etc. 

These criticisms were growing severe when one of the com- 
pany said: "Brethren, you are too severe. You misjudge Bro. 
Carroll. Unless matters change greatly he will die. He can't 
live another year if things are not remedied. He is 'nearly 
dead' now. The man is perfectly sincere 

"He is dead — dead in love." 

All. this is historical. 

Now for the illustrative drama. A deacon is responsible for 
it. He is conservative, and has never taken any public part in 
the Texas troubles. But he tells this: At the time Defendant 
Carroll made this last dying speech he was seeking the heart 
and hand of a noble woman. She had been indignant at the 
deposition of Dr. Burleson from the presidency of Baylor Uni- 
versity. And she attributed the grand old man's downfall to 
Defendant Carroll. Accordingly, when he sought the honor of 
the heart and hand of this good woman, he had an obstacle, an 
abatis, so to speak, in the heart of this good friend of Dr. Bur- 
leson to overcome. And the deacon says, in his imagination at 
least, she told him "No." She could never marry a man who 
had treated her dear old friend so ill. Then it was that De- 
fendant Carroll, the deacon says, felt the dissolving of his vi- 
tals. It was under this heart stricture he was laboring when 
the speech of welcome was made. He had told the good woman 
he could not live without her; that, as Artemus Ward says, 
"victuals had ceased to be attrative to him." 

And he evidently, the deacon continues, would have' died, had 
he not found relief, like Jacob at Bethel, in the touch of an 
angel. He went to her again. She told him, "No, no, no!" with 
repeated emphasis. He fell prostrate at her feet, and seemed 
to know no more! His physician was summoned in haste, found 
him past all hope of recovery, and told him if he had any ar- 
rangements to make, to make them quickly, as his time was 
short, and his strength almost gone. But his whispers were still 



86 THE COMPLETE 

audible, and he said: "Doctor, I am in my right mind, although 
so weak. I have long professed to be "Spirit-guided," although 
only my supplements believed me. I now at this honest hour 
want to prove it, that those who have wept over my farewell ad 
dresses in the Convention may be vindicated for voting my plans 
to have Hayden expelled. Now, to prove my lack of selfish 
motives, to demonstrate my entire freedom from all carnal feel- 
ing toward my bitterest foes, without exception, I want you to 
select for my pall-bearers six of my bitterest enemies and six of 
my warmest friends. Among the former I name S. J. Anderson 
of Dallas, W. H. Parks of Morgan, S. H. Slaughter of Ennis, H. B 
Pender of Greenville, J. M. Newburn of Jacksonville and E. B. 
Hardie of Greenville. For my friends I name J. B. Cranfill, J. B. 
Gambrell, C. C. Slaughter and W. L. Williams of Dallas, R. T. 
Hanks of Abilene and L. D. Lamkin of Houston. I would say 
more, but my strength fails me. You see my spirit. Do the rest 
for me." With this he fell into a comatose condition. The doc 
tor retired, and having conferred with some of his friends, re- 
turned to his bedside and said: "Dr. Carroll, are you still con- 
scious?" He faintly whispered "Yes." 

"We have done as you said, and in carrying out wnat we know 
to be your wishes, we have made an arrangement that we know 
will please you. You know," continued the doctor, "that since 
the death of Spurgeon, you are the greatest living preacher in 
the world." 

He assented by a nod, saying distinctly, "Yes." 

"Well, then," said they, "Doctor, when you are gone it is 
fitting that your funeral oration should be delivered by the great- 
est living preacher since the death of Carroll, and we have se- 
lected Dr. Hayden to preach your funeral." 

Kicking the cover off, he rose with a bound, exclaiming as 
he lit on the floor, "Give me my tobacco and slippers, and tele 
graph Hayden not to come; the whole thing's off." 

"He lives! he lives!" exclaimed the company, and retired to 
their respective homes. 

"Then," says the deacon, "he went to the angel, doubled him- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 8? 

self up like a jack-knife at her feet; told her he had been beyond 
the divide, had confessed to Dr. Burleson his ingratitude and sin 
and that Dr. Burleson had forgiven him. And now, if she would 
have pity on him, he would never do so any more, but would 
be content to be "Dean" of the Bible School and give up the 
presidency of Baylor University forever. No true woman ever 
let a penitent man die at her feet. And Defendant Carroll, after 
pleading the statute of limitations in one case, acquiesced in the 
Confession of Judgment in another, and is alive to this day. 

And it is literally true that he has never complained since. 
He owes the Plaintiff a big doctor's bill for his permanent cure. 
This is caricature, but not exaggeration. 

History is full of instances, from large to small, from Joan 
of Arc, the Maid of Orleans, to Mary Eddy the Holy Mother of 
Boston; from Mahomet to the Crusades, from the Brobdinags to 
the Lilliputs. from the Carrie Nations of Kansas to the Cranfills 
and the Carrolls of Texas. Alexander Dowie is a striking illus- 
tration of the gregarious nature of all races in all ages in fol- 
lowing professions of heavenly revelations and "Sunday-morning 
dying thoughts," as Dr. S. H. Ford was wont to call them. 

Nothing but stomachs afflicted with moral gastritis could hold 
such spiritual soda-water. 

The writer is conscious of the danger of being led into an 
unfair portrayal of an insane ambition, by a personal prejudice 
on the one hand, or of softening the truth for fear of his preju- 
dices on the other. But by all who are intimately acquainted 
with Defendant B. H. Carroll, it is conceded that this weakness 
was in the nature of a malady. Ambition blinded him, said Dr. 
Burleson, to every consideration of gratitude, affection, and truth. 
His ambition was to him what kleptomania was to Defendant 
Cranfill. It brooked no restraint, and knew no bounds. Those 
who flattered his vanity had no faults. Those who refused had 
no virtues. He built him a "Tabernacle" of clapboards, to be 
like Spurgeon. He published each week a homily distinguished 
chiefly for its prolixity and announced the publication of a vol- 
ume of sermons, same size, type, color of binding and headlines, 



88 THE COMPLETE 

"Preached by Pastor B. H. Carroll in the Tabernacle at Waco," 
etc. . This at the very time his brick house of worship was never 
filled, except occasionally by the students of the University. Had 
Defendant Cranfill published him "the greatest living Sanscrit 
scholar in the world since the death of Sir William Rawlinson," 
he would have, like the wife of the Vicar of Wakefield, spent his 
life trying to live up to it; and, having traced a few Greek words 
to their Sanscrit roots, he would have written an article on it 
as the vernacular of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and 
demonstrated it to his Bible Class. Of course, such an infirmity 
puerilizes, so to speak, the mind, and keeps it narrowed to the 
channel of sophomore. 

Disclaiming the bias of prejudice, but not affecting the pro- 
phecy of a superior piety, the Plaintiff has postponed this book 
for the developments this insane ambition would be sure to 
bring, and what is here related is frm truthful citizens of Waco. 
While not here reported as from first hand, it is no doubt sub- 
stantially true. 

To be as specific as the information at hand will admit: 
1. Last summer Defendant (Dean) B. H. Carroll announced 
in public print and by private letters that he would raise 
$20,000 (?) (this amount is not definite) for tne endowment ot 
the Bible Department of Baylor University; that he had some 
of this amount already raised, and he would soon be able to 
raise the balance. And he called on the friends of Baylor Uni- 
versity to help him in this enterprise. So far as the outside 
world knew, this met the approval of President S. P. Brooks. It 
was the natural presumption. Defendant Carroll had been in- 
fluential in electing this scholarly young man to this honorable 
and responsible position, and it was known by those who had 
believed Dr. Burleson's statements about Defendant Carroll, that 
President Brooks must yield his neck to the yoke, or wince and 
wrestle with an illiterate master. But outside of the camp little 
or nothing was positively known. The disclosures came, how- 
ever, at the Convention which met in Dallas in November, 1905, 
when President Brooks read his Annual Report. While worded 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 89 

with, care, it heaved with the indications of subterranean fire. 
What The Texas Baptist Herald had been saying of the ever- 
lasting shamming going on for years at the annual meetings of 
the Convention as to the munificent sums of money raised for 
missions and education, the burning of tinted powders delighting 
the eyes of the supplements, and the skyrockets sent up by the 
reports of Secretary Defendant J. M. Carroll were claimed as 
the Twentieth Century Pentecostal Cloven Tongues of the first 
century coming down again. 

President Brooks in his remarkable report said: 

"In the manifest requirements of an institution of this kind 
in an honest effort to make good the university pretensions set 
up by the Convention, we have accomplished a great work, and 
have equipment required even for a greater work in the future. 
This growth was impossible with our meager income. We were 
forced to make prepayments, made available by friends of the 
institution. These prepayments now aggregate $60,000, and we 
are perfectly sure that the Baptists of Texas will not let the 
burden rest indefinitely^on our shoulders. We now bear it per- 
sonally. If you have adverse criticisms, we ask that final judg- 
ment of our course in the matter be reserved until the facts are 
well known. .The Education Commission raised large sums in 
promises; for example, the $90,000 in 1902 at the Waco Conven- 
tion, but was able to collect but very little of it, thousands of 
dollars being repudiated by the churches whose pastors had un- 
wisely gone beyond their ability and willingness to pay." 

This is in the exact form in which it was adopted by the Con- 
vention. That it gave great offense will appear from the fact 
that, while this report was adopted on the first day of the Con- 
vention, and adopted as the truth by the Convention, complaint 
being made to President Brooks, it was recorded on minutes 
of the Convention, page 59, as follows: 

"S. P. Brooks, President of Baylor University, asked permis- 
sion to make certain verbal changes in his report. The request 
was granted by unanimous request." (See Baptist Annual, 1905, p 
59.) 



90 THE COMPLETE 

And so it appears in the body of the minutes. The Carrolls 
had reported "$800,000" raised under Secretary J. M. Carroll; 
President Brooks had reported that much of this "$800,000" had 
been "repudiated by the churches," and with their usual prac- 
ticed concealment, they prevailed on President Brooks to make 
the change quoted, and the minutes were perverted to read: 

"The Education Commission raised large sums in promises, 
for example, the $90,000 in 1902 at the Waco Convention; but, 
as usual in such large subscriptions, much of it was not paid." 
(See Minutes of the Convention, 1905, p. 52.) 

This holding one face to the preachers, and another to the 
people, has characterized these leaders from the beginning. A 
more genuine Jesuitism was never practiced by the followers of 
Ignatius Loyola. 

Continuing, President Brooks said: "On the basis of the nor- 
mal expectation of that one meeting (1902), not to mention thou- 
sands of dollars promised at other times, yet never paid, we 
pitched our plans on a plane of the actual requirements of our 
increasing student body. At no time were we going beyond 
our probable receipts. Having the teachers employed, the stu- 
dents on hand, the apparatus at work, the books and libraries in 
service, necessary improvements and repairs made, increased in- 
surance, etc., we could not recede. At no time has money been 
squandered. It has, however, for the Baptists, been prepaid. The 
public and the Baptists have already received the output of our 
labors, and there are on hand now actual" academic assets for 
our expenditures, barring the divine asset of an educated min- 
istry, whose value can not be expressed in sordid dollars. The 
endowment we expected did not come. We have reached a limit 
of debt. We throw ourselves on the denomination, asking for 
relief." 

Then, under this first truthful report, in a decade these 
Pentecost-makers, the" Carrolls, like their claimed exemplars at 
Jerusalem, were scattered abroad. Secretary J. M. Carroll "Re- 
signed!" He claimed to have "raised $800,000 for Baptist educa- 
tion in Texas!" Every shout of every supplement bad been reg- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 91 

Istered by J. M. Carroll and, as President Brooks said, '"repudi- 
ated by the churches." In high dudgeon Secretary J. M. Carroll 
resigned; and, like Freedom, when Koscuisko fell, Education 
Shrieked! At leafct she ought to, for she had been for years cos- 
tumed on the stage before applauding assemblies, in garments 
glittering with the cheap tinsel of sham reports, with her cheeks 
painted, her eye-lashes pigmented with secretarial ink, and her 
fair head pompadoured with false frizzes, until the beauteous 
goddess as Dr. Burleson had left her, was past all recognition. 
Of course, when President Brooks pulled off the mask and threw 
this dangling tinsel on the floor at the Convention, in the pres- 
ence of the people, the Carrolls were affronted, not to say hu- 
miliated, exposed! Defendant B. H. Carroll took a plug of to- 
bacco from his pocket, furled his horse-tail whiskers to one side 
as one draws aside a portiere to. admit a distinguished guest, let 
in a fresh chew, donned his hat, and flouted back to Waco! 

Here was a crisis! The Secretary resigned! The Dean gone 
home! What now would the Convention do? 

This brings the reader to the $20,000 endowment of the Bible 
Department of Baylor University. President Brooks seemed to 
have known his ground. The note he struck rang far. The 
Convention not only accepted his report; but, after the "Dean'* 
had gone home, on Saturday, the Convention adopted a resolu- 
tion relieving him of his financial aspirations as to the endow- 
ment of the Bible Department, and placed the work heretofore 
exploited by both the Carroll's, on President Brooks! It was 
done with the tenderness and skill of a surgeon operating on the 
denomination to relieve it of a chronic case of financial appendi- 
citis. 

It is now time to recite a bit of unwritten history. When 
John D. Rockefeller gave $10,000,000 for education, it was left 
to a Committee in New York to apportion it. While Mr. Rocke- 
feller was a Baptist, it was stipulated that no sectarian use 
should be made of his $10,000,000 gift. To guard this point, the 
Committee decided that the fund should be given exclusively to 
education in its broadest import, but not to Theology. This ex- 



92 THE COMPLETE 

eluded Baylor University and all other schools having a Theolog- 
ical department. In a meeting of this same Texas Educational Com- 
mission it was announced by Defendant Gambrell that a half mil- 
lion dollars for Baylor and the correlated schools was a foregone 
conclusion, and possibly a million. But that Bible Department 
in Baylor stood in the way of the rule adopted by the New York 
Committee. Hence the trustees of Baylor University hastened 
to separate them. That would let Baylor University in, for now 
the Literary and the Theological Departments were two separate 
and distinct institutions. Meantime, the Texas Education Com- 
mission had so represented Baptist educational affairs in Texas 
to the Rockefeller Committee in New York that the committee 
decided not to give any money to The Texas Baptist University 
at Oak Cliff, unless it would unite with Baylor, either by disso- 
lution or correlation! 

The reader may imagine that this closes the chapter. Not so, 
however. All diseases have more or less what doctors call 
however. All diseases have more or less what the doctors call 
roll from further financial responsibility in raising $20,000 for 
his Bible Department seems to have smitten him, like Jacob, in 
the thigh. For, having flaunted home Saturday, on Monday he 
hastened back to Dallas, and appeared before the usual residue 
of the Monday Convention, now adjourned from the Music Hall 
to the First Church house, and called their attention to the ca- 
lamity of Saturday, when he had been discharged from a task 
already so nearly accomplished in the endowment of the Baylor 
Bible School! It was no doubt a misunderstanding! The remedy 
was easy! Just rescind it, and the denomination and its theology 
were safe! 

But there is a tide in the affairs of men; and, in this instance, 
it was, for the Carrolls, going out. The forests wave- under the 
soughing of the south winds; but no hot air seems to have moved 
this Monday's fag-end of an adjourning Convention. The resolu- 
tion relieving the "Dean" stood unrepealed! 

There was one more resort. To that, resort is had. We are 
coming to a crisis. 



CONSPIEAOY TRIAL 93 

Following the adjournment of the Convention (exactly at what 
time cannot be here stated), the Defendants Carroll, one or both, 
asked President Brooks to review his statements of Conventional 
proclamations and Church repudiations, in his report to the Con- 
vention, discover his error, and make "correction." What passed 
between the "Dean" and the President can be given here only 
vaguely. Suffice it to say that President Brooks could not be 
convinced that his report contained any errors. No matter what 
the Carroll "books" said, "the $60,000" deficit remained. It was 
like Mrs. Eddy trying to show Mark Twain that he had received 
no broken bones from his sixty-foot fall from a railroad trestle 
on to the rocks below. The virile young President was aching 
from that $60,000 deficit, and had not learned at Yale the "Spirit 
Guided" financial science of correlating a $60,000 debt into an 
$800,000 endowment! 

Here was obstinacy, yea ingratitude, for you! 

Had not the "Dean" put him into the Presidential chair? 
Had not Secretary Carroll reported $800,000 for education? Shall 
this word, "the pledges made by the preachers and repudiated 
by the churches" stand as stable and staple history? Would not 
that leave the Carrolls under the cloud of having rivalled De- 
fendant Gambrell in padded reports? But, as before stated, all 
these padded reports of the Carrolls had transpired before the 
Convention at Dallas in 1905. The confirmative developments 
came to light as follows: Defendant B. H. Carroll had been halted 
at the subordinate station of "Dean" of the Bible Department of 
Baylor University. With philosophic submission, he resolved to 
make the most of it. He turned his eyes from the "Shining Bat- 
talions" to the "Commentaries." It is believed he left off novels. 
It was judiciously arranged by the faculty that he should teach 
the "English Bible." Of Hebrew he could have pleaded "Not 
guilty." Of Greek he could have pleaded the statute of limi- 
tations. 

In the summer of 1905 the "Dean" had lit tinted lights, shot 
off Roman candles, and sent up sky-rockets into the denomina- 
tional skies about his raising $20,000 endowment for the Bible 



94 THE COMPLETE 

Department of Baylor University! There was a significant em- 
phasis put on the statement that an assuring moiety of this 
amount had already been provided and that the balance would 
materialize, no doubt. The flavor left after reading one of these 
newspaper or circular announcements, was that it was treason to 
gainsay this fine flavor of Bible endowment of Baylor Bible 
School. Still, nothing, perhaps, was known of the animus of 
this independent endowment of the English Bible Dean without 
sanction of the strenuous young President, S. P. Brooks, at the 
head of the University. The procession was led wholly by the 
"Dean," without either the consent or, perhaps, the consultation 
of the President, whom Defendant Carroll had, a few years be- 
fore, nominated to the presidency! Of course, this should have 
made him both plastic and pliable, while, as the sequel wili 
show, he was neither. Now comes the denouement, the bursting 
of the pod, the pushing of the germ through the crusting earth to 
the li;*ht t:"f fiixyi 

President Brooks read his official report, quoted before, as 
President of Baylor University, before the Convention at Dallas, 
November, 1905. It was more than a sky-rocket or even a flash- 
light. It was an explosion, a seismic lifting of the denominational 
incrustation, revealing the monumental shams of the Carrolls and 
the blatherskite amount they had raised since J. M. Carroll had 
been Secretary of the Educational Commission, beginning soon 
after the San Antonio Convention in 1897. These munificent 
announcements of, say, $50,000 in 1898, $G0,000 in 1899, $70,000 
in 1900, $80,000 in 1901, $90,000 in 1902, and so on, had been an- 
nually made, until the sum had become dangerously near the 
million mark, being "$800,000!" All for Baptist Education in 
Texas!! The visitors had gone away and said, "Texas Baptists 
know how to do things." These visitors had witnessed the sham 
collections for education at the annual Conventions! It was 
in vain The Herald pointed out these shams and the moral evils 
coming from them. The "Supplements" had even blurted out 
at the top of their voices, "I give $500;" "Put down my mission 
station for $500;" "Put down my association for $2,000;" "I will 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 9f> 

pledge my field for $1,000," etc., etc. At the end of the frenzied 
irush, this rhapsodical carrolization of "Supplements" for the 
"Correlation of schools," the announcement of the munificent sum 
of, say, $100,000 was made! And spontaneously sprang, usually 
from Defendant Hanks': 

"Praise God, from whom all blessings flow," 
(for the sham this hour perpetrated). It is due to many of them 
to say that they thought it was all genuine. They heard it at 
Waco, at Fort Worth, at Dallas. They staid long at Vesuvius! 
Alas, November, 1905, they were at San Francisco! For then 
President Brooks read his report. 

We have passed the tragedy. Come we now to the comedy! 

The Convention, as stated, adopted President Brooks' report, 
setting forth that the annual announcements of collections for 
education were annually "repudiated by the churches!" Defend 
ant J. M. Carroll had annually reported the sham collections. 
President Brooks now reported the genuine repudiation! 

Let the reader catch his breath good for the next pull, hard 
pull and pull-both-tcgether of the Defendants Carroll; for it is 
interesting, not to say exciting. It is given as it was gotten, with- 
out claiming accuracy of detail, but only fidelity of substance: 

Soon following the adjournment of the Convention, Defendants 
Carroll approached President Brocks, informed him that his re- 
port of the "Repudiation" of the collections at the annual Car 
rollizations of the correlated "Supplements" was an inadvertence, 
a lapsus pennae, perhaps a freak of the gray matter — In short, a 
mistake, and they would like to show him the figures which 
would give him the opportunity, the honor and the pleasure of 
a correction. The bright young President informed them that he 
was more concerned in the finance than in the figures of these 
annual announcements of pledges followed with monotonous fidel- 
ity by the annual repudiations of the churches. It was the shin- 
ing dollars he was after, and not the beautiful dollar-marks 
The $-marlvS did not help to diminish the $60,000 deficit which 
confronted, not to say confounded, the faculty. But they in- 
sisted that he, like the proverbial Missourian, should let them 



96 THE' COMPLETE 

show him from, the actual figures themselves. He was strangely 
obstinate, and insisted that the repudiated figures were always 
with him, but that fictitious figures served him no practical re- 
lief in meeting that stubborn $60,000 deficit. He would not be 
shown. The beauteous dollar ($) mark before repudiated figures 
gave him no comfort. The very idea of adding up figures to meet 
financial deficits with no other bankable features than the dollar 
mark was like trying to fatten a William capra on paper, on 
which was the appetizing picture of a cabbage patch. 

In this state of things the interim, or interviews, passed into 
unwritten history. Several months passed. 

The climax came in February or in March, 1906. One day 
the Dean of the English Bible, so it is reported on good authority, 
and confidently believed, approached President Brooks, and said 
Substantially: "You know, President Brooks, that the Bible De- 
partment is the most important department in Baylor Univer- 
'sity." The nerves were shocked; the muscles in contact with the 
hair follicles suddenly contracted, the jet black tresses of the 
handsome young President stood on end, and the goose-pimples 
gathered in hillocks on his brow. The Dean of the English Bible 
being at the head of "The Most Important Department in the 
University," of course, made him the most important member of 
the faculty!! Ergo! That is the logic of it. The young Presi- 
dent was stupefied. He looked to see if the Dean it was that 
spoke. He felt of his ears to see if it was his own auricular 
nerves that were confounding him. The auricle was there. The 
helix, the anti-helix, the tragus, the anti-tragus, the concha and 
lobolus, were all there! The ear was all right. But was it true 
that the Most Impirtant Member of the Faculty was before him? 
Was it hallcuination or phantasm in either the speaker or the 
hearer; and if so, which; and if not, what? Was it Leibnitz's 
theory of monads or spiritual atoms struggling back into the in- 
finite creating friction between the President and the Dean? Or 
was it that some old inordinate desire for preferment, which Dr. 
Burleson described long ago, working like microbes through the 
gray matter of the English Bible Dean? "Mr. President/' quoth 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 97 

the Dean, "as my department is the most important in the Uni- 
versity; I am here to insist that my salary, and that of my 
son B. H. Jr. be increased. These salaries are not adequate to 
the positions we occupy, to the paramount chairs we fill! These 
salaries must be increased!!" 

The brave, blank, blue, black young President informed the 
most important member of the faculty that their respective 
hypostenorities (there is no such word, but the case necessitates 
invention) were divergent, not to say antagonistic; that that same 
repudiation by the churches of the pledges of the supplements 
constituted a sort of a financial Alps too high for the eagles on 
the dollars that were essential to tote them over the snow-crag9 
of a $60,000 deficit; that the only way to meet the financial de- 
mands of the Carrolls, the most important members of the fac- 
ulty, would be to scale down the wages of the inferior professors; 
and that he would be essentially blest if that should ever be, as 
long as he was President! The Dean of the English Bible gave 
the young President to understand that this was no time for 
hesitation or insubordination; that the issue was on, and if neces- 
sary to feather the financial nest of the most important members 
of the faculty and open the eyes of the young Presidential prophet 
to the horses of fire and the chariots of fire represented by the 
faithful young preachers who had lit their lights, after an Eastern 
custom, at the Dean's English Bible altar, reinforced by the "sup- 
plements," he, Dean of the English Bible, would take the Bible 
Department, saw off the University branches and transplant the 
main trunk to Fort Worth! ! Say! 

This may be in funny form, but it is more than a funny fact. 
The substance of this interview actually occurred between the 
two men. President Brooks finally, and with the dignity, it is 
said, of his responsible position, gave Defendant Carroll to un- 
derstand that his selfish, ambitious and impudent demands were 
simply ridiculous, and that they could never be seriously con- 
sidered while he was President. 

Then the matter was brought before the Trustees, who, after 
hearing the Dean's grievances and the President's reply, for two 



98 THE COMPLETE 

days, sustained President Brooks! How far the discomfited 
dean (the little d, now) would have carried his threat to carry 
the Bible School to Fort Worth, is not known; for, at this junc- 
ture "Professor" B. H. Carroll, Jr., was discovered by the faculty 
to have been engaged in unprofessional and unministerial con- 
duct, attested by letters in his own handwriting, which the faculty 
had intercepted, fixing his immorality beyond dispute, and resign- 
ing his professorship. A dead prolapsus of utterance fell like a 
curtain on the scene. If Defendant B. H. Carroll fears that his 
ministerial sons "will kill Hayden," and if, after declaring Defend- 
ant Hanks guilty, as he did in writing as well as verbally, and 
then form an alliance and enter a conspiracy with him to "down 
Hayden," how can he hope to escape the nemesis of his own 
deeds! 

What might have become of the matter, no one can tell, had 
it not been for the fact that the younger of the two most impor- 
tant members of the faculty, B. H. Carroll, Jr., for conduct re- 
flecting on the dignity and respectability of the University, was 
requested by the faculty and trustees to hand in his resignation! ! 
That was evidently unexpected by the elder of the two most 
important members of the faculty. The younger resigned, the 
elder subsided, and the virile young President, feeling his seat in 
the saddle secure, lifted his tired leg from the stirrup, threw it 
over the withers of his official steed, and rode on. 

Oh, the selfishness of human nature! Oh, the puerility of hu- 
man ambition! Oh, the greed, the graft, the blind ingratitude of 
self-love! There are too many priests who pass upon the other 
side. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 99 

CHAPTER VIII. 
"THAT SORE NEED." 

With this twofold unification, first of our Baptist people 
among- themselves, and second, of the leaders, in less than two 
years, there unfortunately arose in Dallas what was known as the 
"Hanks Scandal." This was in 1888. To defend himself, as he 
openly announced, he started a paper, or rather bought a little 
paper already started. Much, perhaps, had been forgiven, but 
less forgotten of the friction engendered by the aggressive meas- 
ures employed in bringing about unification. The thing most 
difficult in unification, and the last to be effected, was that of 
the two newspapers. But it was universally declared, most of 
all by Defendant B. H. Carroll, that "while newspaper competi- 
tion continued, the unification of schools and organizations ef- 
fected in the latter part of 1885, were fruitless." "Newspaper 
competition," said he and they, "was the bane and blight of uni- 
fication." This was the universal view. Defendant ts. hi. uarroli 
had declared in print that to fail to unite the papers would lose 
all. "It was," he said, "like a ship, after riding all the wave? 
of a stormy voyage, going down in sight of land amid the waving 
of friendly hands on the shore." It was wreck and ruin and dis- 
aster unspeakable. Hence the "Hanks Scandal" and the Hanks 
paper made it possible, as will be seen a little later on, to awaken 
this dangerous source of division, "Newspaper Competition." Not 
that the Hanks new Western Baptist constituted a menace in 
itself. Not that. But it awoke the editorial frenzy that had 
slept since the hour of consolidation, and now woke as the sun- 
beams stirred music in the statue of Memnon. So this "sore 
need of a paper at Waco" burned the eastern sky. Or, with 
more accurate trope, it made those who had pledged themselves 
to the support of The Texas Baptist Herald wish themselves, 
like the mariners of Ulysses, released from the masts when they 
heard the songs of the sirens. 

This "sore need of a paper at Waco" became an uncontrollable 
passion which materialized in April, 1892. Defendant B. H. 
Carroll's objection to The Texas Baptist Herald was both con- 

LOFC 



100 THE COMPLETE 

stitutional and specific; to- wit, the editor declined all confidences 
involving the rights of the Churches. The pent-up dissent now 
became acute. Strenuous and persistent efforts had been made 
to buy out The Texas Baptist Herald. Newspaper competition 
had become a "sore" absorbing every old feud, and falling into a 
denominational abscess. The old Triumvirate, one excepted, were 
united — Drs. Link, Law and Smith of the old Convention, and 
Drs. Carroll and Buckntr of the old Association — and all from 
different motives. Dr. Buckner had espoused the cause of Hanks, 
Dr. Carroll avowed his belief in the guilt of Hanks, declaring 
the double verdict of the council in which seven favored con 
viction and seven acquittal, each septimate writing their verdict 
and then uniting them into one, seven declaring him guilty, and 
seven declaring him only "seemingly" guilty in the same docu- 
ment. This, Defendant Carroll declared a "whitewash, in the 
like of which he would never participate again." Yet "sorely 
he needed a paper at Waco," and nothing but a paper would 
cure the Waco "sore." 

I saw what was coming, notwithstanding I had paid $25,000 
counting purchase price and interest, for the Texas Newspape7 
Good-Will, basing my hope of support on double labor, impartial 
duty, fairness to all people, and fidelity to all principle, detei 
mined that I would not pool with the few nor play with the many, 
fully conceding that, in the genius of our Baptist institution, 
every man has a right to publish a paper, which individual fran- 
chise no man can either sell or buy. Yet I saw what the "sore 
need of a paper at Waco" meant. That "sore need" festered in 
"Newspaper Competition" and ripened into Extravagance, Nepo- 
tism, Embezzlement and Conspiracy. No eye ever saw a line, and 
no ear ever heard a word from me claiming anything for my pur- 
chase or declaring against the liberty of any man to publish a pa- 
per as his inalienable right. My claim was based alone on fidelity 
to the cause of religion, morality and truth. I saw the "sore need" 
would issue in another paper, and my only aim was to be at peace 
with it. 

Accordingly, in March, 1892, Defendant Cranfill, then Secre- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 101 

tary of Missions, came from his home in Waco to Dallas, hiding 
behind the reputable name of Rev. M. V. Smith; bought the 
Hanks Western Baptist, changed its name to the Texas Baptist 
Standard, and moved it to Waco. The "sore need of a newspa- 
per in Waco" had been relieved. Defendant Cranfill resigned 
his office of Secretary, and became the editor. As by the turn- 
ing of a kaleidoscope, the warring Hanks Western Baptist pro- 
claimed itself the "Peace Paper." As recited elsewhere, Editor 
Cranfill, Chairman of the Committee, raised for the new Secre- 
tary J. M. Carroll the salary from $2,100 to $2,500, besides the 
contracted right to add other expenses at pleasure. In recipro- 
cation of this favor, Secretary Carroll contracted with Editor 
Cranfill to pay him $125 for four Sundays in the month, besides 
paying him in cash "$2,500 to pay missionaries," for which the 
scratch of a pen by receipt or missionary report of Secretary, 
or other writing, has never been shown, save the mere entry ol 
the fact in Secretary Carroll's cash book. It was not only a di- 
vision of honors, but also a division of mission funds. The 
frenzy of ambition and the love of money had met and reinforced 
each other like confluent streams. 

The Inordinate Love of Praise. 

Here enters the common current, another swelling stream, 
in the form of inordinate love of praise, elsewhere mentioned, 
which perhaps never would have gone to its extravagant limit 
but for the temptation which had come to supply "a sore need." 
I here set nothing down of prejudice, but write for the good it 
may do in warning against that sin by which the angels fell. 

Editor Cranfill now began to publish "Pastor B. H. Carroll 
the greatest living preacher in the world since the death of 
Spurgeon," and began the publication of the most prolix ser- 
mons, perhaps, that have ever gone to print. The parallelism 
between the London and the Waco preachers was as pleasing 
as it was unparalleled. But the analogy must needs be ex- 
tended. 

Although the Waco house of worship had been publicly an- 



102 THE COMPLETE 

nounced as "seating 1,100 people," which, house was without the 
Baylor students, scarcely ever even approximately full, yet the 
"Metropolitan Tabernacle, London" must needs have a counter- 
part at Waco, and accordingly, with clapboard, scantling and 
shingles, "The Waco Tabernacle" capable of holding 2,000 peo- 
ple, was erected for "Pastor Carroll's" congregations. Still fur- 
ther to press the parallel between the London Metropolitan Tab- 
ernacle preacher and the Waco Tabernacle preacher, his ser- 
mons were printed in the Texas Baptist Standard, with almost 
identical headlines with those of Spurgeon, "Preached in the Metro- 
politan Tabernacle, Sunday," (date given) "by Pastor C. H. 
Spurgeon." But the parallelism was still incomplete, and so the 
"Series of Sermons" must be given permanent form in a vol- 
ume. The forthcoming volume was announced almost exactly 
after the manner and almost in the words of Pater Noster Row. 
A similar binding was finally chosen, and the volume appeared, 
distinguished from the London volumes mostly by the contents. 
The whole melodrama and the volume of sermons from Colo- 
phon to Finis, may be written in a trissyllable — Forgotten. The 
Sermon book is out of print; the "Tabernacle" has long since 
been vacated, clapboard, platform and gable, and the melancholy 
farce has faded and lies in memory, like the bare ribs of a 
stranded schooner along the reefs of Key West — a warning, it 
is to be hoped, to all the young and old who may be tempted 
hereafter, like Icarus, to essay waxen wings too near the sun. 
This is not written in irony nor with aught of conscious malice, 
envy or ill-will. It is a faithful warning against that swelling 
pride, that weak ambition which, unchecked, is fraught with much 
evil to all men, not excepting our Baptist ministry. Ambition 
is dangerous from its weakness. "Ambition," says Colton, 
"makes the same mistake concerning power that avarice makes 
concerning wealth. She begins by accumulating power as a 
means to happiness, and she finishes by continuing to accumulate 
it as an end." I have been forced to study this passion of ambi- 
glorious passion, which makes such havoc among the sons of 
tion by this Conspiracy. Burton calls "Ambition, that high and 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 103 

men, arising from a proud desire of honor and distinction; and 
when the splendid trappings in which it is usually caparisoned 
are removed, will be found to consist of the mean materials of 
envy, pride, and covetousness." It is close akin to the passion 
of covetousness. This Conspiracy strikingly reinforces the state- 
ment of Montague: "Ambition sufficiently plagues her prose- 
lytes, by keeping themselves always in show, like the statue in 
a public place." Also that saying of Bovee: "Neither love nor 
ambition, as it has often been shown, can brook a division of its 
empire in the heart." Bacon, whose great thoughts are like in- 
gots of gold in a mine, calls Ambition a choler, "which is a hu- 
mor that maketh men active, earnest, full of alacrity and stir- 
ring, if it be not stopped; but if it be stopped, and cannot have 
its way, it becometh fiery, and thereby malign and venomous." 

There is something insatiable about ambition, feeding its ap- 
petite as liquor enslaves the sot. As Ralph Waldo Emerson has 
said: "Most natures are insolvent; cannot satisfy their own 
wants, have an ambition out of all proportion to their practical 
force and do so lean and beg day and night continually." And 
Hume asserts, "Ambition is the most incurable and inflexible of 
all human passions." Hume did not know the awful power of 
covetousness. He would not accept the Scriptural doctrine of its 
idolatry. Machiavelli endorses Emerson in saying that "Ambi- 
tion is so powerful a passion in the human breast that however 
high we reach we are never satisfied." "If not for that of con- 
science, yet at least for ambition's sake," says Montaigne, "let 
us reject ambition; let us disdain that thirst of honor and re- 
nown, so low and mendicant, that it makes us beg it of all sorts 
of people." 

While Conspiracy is the most incredible thing in the world. 
Prejudice is the most credible. Conspiracy is rare. Prejudice, 
be it said in truth, but in sadness, is all too common. This 
statement is made as to the distress of Defendant B. H. Carroll's 
inordinate love of praise and, it may be said, epilepsy of am- 
bition. It was an ambition altogether dominant. Everything fell 
beneath it. It consumed all his faculties as the love of money 






104 THE COMPLETE 

deranges the normal feelings of the miser. It dissolves the mora] 
faculties and leaves its victim wholly at its mercy. 

That these statements may appear as true as they really are, 
the statements of Dr. R. C. Burleson are again cited. Defendant 
B. H. Carroll on the witness stand testified to the "high and 
good character of Dr. Burleson for truth and veracity." Dr. 
Burleson's written statements are therefore vouched for by De- 
fendant Carroll himself. Though impeached by Defendant Car- 
roll with the utmost "dishonor" during life, after his death he 
forced from the sworn lips of Defendant Carroll a retraction of 
every charge made during Dr. Burleson's life and extorted from 
him in self-defense the acknowledgment that his charges were 
untrue. 



He knows the bitter, weary way; 
He knows the endless striving-, day by day, 
The souls that weep, the souls that pray, 
He knows. 

He knows how hard the fight has been, 
The clouds that come our lives between, 
The wounds the world hath never seen, 
He knows. 

He knows when faint and worn we sink; 
How deep the pain, how near the brink, 
Of dark despair we pause and shrink — 
He knows. 

He knows! Oh, thought so full of bliss! 
For though our joy on earth we miss, 
We still can bear it, feeling this — 
He knows. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 105 

CHAPTER IX. 
HOW DEFENDANT C. C. SLAUGHTER GOT INTO IT. 

The connection of Defendant Slaughter with this Conspiracy 
deserves explanation. He had been a member of the First 
Church, Dallas, for many years. He had never, during a long life, 
attended a meeting of the Convention. He was at the Hot Springs 
of South Dakota in August, 1897. Here he was visited by De- 
fendant J. M. Carroll, then Secretary of State Missions. By his 
own testimony, at the urgent request of Defendant J. M. Carroll, 
he came home and was elected a messenger to the Convention 
at San Antonio. All this by admission by previous agreement 
between him and Defendant J. M. Carroll to arrange, they said, 
the "Correlation of Schools." 

At San Antonio Defendant' Slaughter was prominent In the 
caucuses. He was in the Thursday nights caucus and wa 
appointed by the caucus "Floor Manager" in the Convention. 
Floor Manager for a man who had never before attended a Con* 
vention in a long life! But he was a moneyed man. An inven- 
tory published in his own paper showed him worth $2,000,000 
He had a grievance. Unmentionable! The leaders were using 
him. Before the Challenge was voted on Monday night he was 
called the platform to make a speech and announced that "he 
would give $25,000 for education." 

He was followed by Defendant Truett, who told the Conven- 
tion that "if they would do their duty the Convention would 
never have any more trouble," meaning that they should adopt 
the Challenge. There were only a comparatively few messengers 
remaining. But the vote was taken. Defendant Slaughter mount- 
ed his chair, faced the audience and motioned the messengers 
up with his hands. This was testified to by witness for Plaintiff 
W. B. Baldwin and others, and was not denied by Defendant 
Slaughter. But he said that he mounted his chair and faced 
the audience to "see how the vote was going and that the lifting 
of his hands was to shade his eyes that he might see!" 

This unearthing of the indictments in the Palo Pinto Court 



106 the complete 

House, the fact that they were never tried, but were "Quashed* 
for technical defects, and expired on the records by the statute ol 
limitations, the testimony of witnesses, that Defendant Slaughter 
well knew Henry Evans, whom he said under oath he "had never 
seen before," together with the affidavits of a score of men, 
Church Party and Board Party, that Henry Evans was a man ol 
the highest integrity, a stockman of large means and reputation 
himself, led to the following proceedings out of Court. 

Defendant Slaughter and the $5,500. 

G. G. Wright, son-in-law and attorney for Defendant C. C. 
Slaughter, proposed to pay Plaintiff's attorney $5,500 if his father- 
in-law and client, C. C. Slaughter, could be dismissed from the 
case. For the Plaintiff to accept this constituted what is known 
in law as "Accord and Satisfaction," the effect of which is the 
dismissal of all the Defendants. Plaintiff declined to accept 
the $5,500. But it was arranged to deposit the money in the 
bank, the name of Defendant Slaughter to be struck from the 
list of Defendants, and the trial to go on with the rest of the De- 
fendants. This was to be kept a secret from everybody on both 
sides except those who were active in the transaction. The 
Plaintiff declined for reasons given to accept a cent of the money 
But as it was a settled fact that Defendant Slaughter's money 
was being freely used to bribe the jurors, as had been done by 
Detective Ed Cornwell, Plaintiff's attorneys dropped the name 
of Defendant Slaughter from the list in order to eliminate the 
bribing by his money, and bringing an end to the litigation. This 
required that the Original Petition of Plaintiff be amended by 
the erasure of Defendant Slaughter's name, and the endorsement 
on the back of it, "Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Original Petition," 
a certain number of days before the Trial. This gave legal no- 
tice to Defendants' attorneys. But the attorneys for Defendants, 
usually vigilant, suspected nothing until the case was opened for 
the third Trial, and the "amended petition" read in open Court. 
When some one of the Defendants noticed that Defendant Slaugh- 
ter's name was not read out. As he had been paying the bills, 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 107 

Including attorneys' fees, a panic ensued. The attorneys for 
Defendants asked a recess to consult and retired to a private 
room with Defendant Cranfill, who had, now that Defendant 
Slaughter was out, become paymaster. Defendant Cranfill was 
known to be dissatisfied with his senior counsel, Judge J. L. 
Henry, whose ability had helped to shield him, but whose exalted 
integrity had offended him. What passed in that twenty minute's 
conference between Defendant Cranfill and his attorneys can 
only be conjectured. But when they emerged from their secret 
meeting it was manifest that everything had been made satisfac- 
tory to the attorneys, as their smiling faces revealed. The pro- 
tracted nature of the conference indicated, however, some lack 
of concinnity, as the old theologians would say, some lack of com- 
placency and cordiality in the fees, and it is conjectured that 
Defendant Cranfill wanted to leave Judge John L. Henry out, 
as they were known to be so far apart in character as to make 
agreement between them, even in the stress of a Court Trial, 
difficult. At all events, it is known that the opinion entertained 
of Defendant Cranfill by his attorney, Judge John L. Henry, is 
the same as that entertained by the Plaintiff, and the public 
at large. It is true, however, that the alter egoism of attorney 
for client made the eminent and spotless jurist John L. Henry, 
as faithful to his client as if the highest admiration for him had 
been entertained. 

Truth and Teeth. 

Passing now by easy transition from this reference to Dft. 
Cranfill, we come again to the testimony of Plaintiff's witness, 
Dr. H. W. Smith. Dr. Smith is dentist. He had been for years 
deacon of the First Church, Waco, of which Defendant Cranfill 
was also a member. 

Dr. Smith testified that he had paid Defendant. Cranfill 
mission money which did not appear on Cranfill's books. He 
testified that he had also done dental work for Defendant Cran- 
fill and let his bills go in payment of subscription to missions, 
crediting Cranfill for the work as "Cash," Cranfill agreeing to 
credit Dr. Smith's subscription to missions with the same amount 



108 THE COMPLETE 

in "Cash." Defendant Cranfill's books showed no credit what* 
ever to Dr. Smith since the $2.50 of 1890. Defendant Cranfill 
took the witness stand and stated on oath: 

1. That Dr. Smith had never done a particle of work for him 
personally. 

2. But he had done dental work for Cranfill's wife, for which he 
had paid Dr. Smith in two bank checks of $12 each. This brought 
the question of their veracity to a test. Dr. Smith telephoned 
to Waco for his books. They came by express. These books 
were kept with diagrams of "Upper" and "Lower" teeth on 
every page after the manner of dentists' books generally. This 
enables the dentist to identify his work, which the patient can 
not do. The dentist indicates on the diagram the tooth and the 
exact spot treated. Even the material used in filling cavities is 
indicated; gold by yellow ink, cement by white, amalgam by gray 
ink. This Dr. Smith had done, and his books showed that on 
a given day in 1890 he had filled a tooth for Defendant Cranfill 
for $5.00 and had charged him $2.50, half price to ministers. 
Defendant Cranfill's books showed that Dr. Smith had been that 
year credited with $2.50 paid for missions. Defendant Cranfill 
emphatically swore that Dr. Smith had never done any work 
for him personally. Dr. Smith testified that Defendant Cranfill 
had never paid him for his wife's work and referring to De- 
fendant Cranfill's sworn statement that he had paid him bank 
"checks," he offered him $100 for any check he had paid him 
for his wife's dental work. This work was done as they both 
agreed, in March, 1892. Note the date, "March, 1892." Dr. 
Smith further stated on the witness stand, as published elsewhere 
in this book, that "if Defendant Cranfill would show his mouth to 
the jury and let them compare his mark on the diagrams in the 
books with the teeth in Cranfill's mouth, if they did not agree 
(if the tooth was still in) he would admit that he had "lied," as 
Cranfill had sworn. Defendant Cranfill refused to show his 
mouth! This, of course, could produce but one effect on the 
minds of the jurors and spectators. It amounted to a sensation, 
and as will be seen, ended in a tragedy. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 109 

DEFENDANT C. C. SLAUGHTER'S EMBARRASSEMENTS. 

S. J. Anderson, witness for Plaintiff, testified that at San Anto- 
nio Defendant C. C. Slaughter said in his (Anderson's) hearing 
that he (Slaughter) was so rejoiced at the accomplishment of 
his mission to the Convention (which he had never attended 
before) that he could not sleep. This was after the two caucuses, 
Thursday evening and Friday night, at the latter of which it 
was arranged to await the departure of Plaintiff's friends before 
acting on the Challenge. Defendant Slaughter said on the wit- 
nes stand that in saying he was too happy to sleep he "referred 
to the correlation of schools." But the correlation of schools 
up to this time had been defeated, several schools, among them 
Burleson College, of which Dr. Anderson was President, having 
refused. The Minutes of the Convention show that the correla- 
tion of schools was not effected then and indeed not until the 
year following. This was exceedingly damaging to the Defend- 
ants. 

Rev. Henry Evans, witness for Plaintiff, testified that on 
Friday noon, November 5, he met Defendant C. C. Slaughter at 
San Antonio, who slapped him on the shoulder familiarly (they 
had been schoolmates in early manhood) and said, "I tell you, 
Brother Henry, we are determined to down that man, S. A. 
Hayden." Defendant Slaughter denied on oath that he had 
"ever seen or heard of Henry Evans," and that "his statement 
was a falsehood of the whole cloth." Witness Henry Evans testi- 
fied that he and Defendant Slaughter were boyhood friends and 
schoolmates, that they had long been Baptists together, that 
only two years before, in 1895, he visited Dallas and spent the 
afternoon in conversation with C. C. Slaughter at his residence, 
that he had testified reluctantly against his old friend, as Plain- 
tiff Hayden was a stranger to him, but that his conscience forced 
him to state the truth. 

This denial under oath that he had ever nuown Henry Evans 
led to -sensational revelations relevant to his testimony. A promi- 
nent attorney in Dallas who heard the swo*~ denial of Defendant 



110 THE COMPLETE 

Slaughter, volunteered the following information: Several years 
ago in Palo Pinto County, Defendant Slaughter was indicted by 
the Grand Jury, once for theft of one cattle and twice for perjury. 
On the first case he was acquitted. On the indictments for per- 
jury he was never tried and asked that each indictment be quash- 
ed on account of its defects. A suit was pending in the Civil Court 
of Palo Pinto County, growing out of which came these two 
indictments by the Grand Jury against Defendant Slaughter for 
perjury. 

The climax of immorality is the prelude of reform. The disre- 
gard of the rules of truth and justice creates a sense of the neces- 
sity of enforcing the law. A carnival of crime is followed by 
the vigilance of society, the fidelity of Courts and the firm dis- 
charge of duty by juries. In the world's history the darkest 
periods have brought out the stars. 



If Christ were here in this dull room of mine, 
That gathers up so many shadows dim, 

I am quite sure its narrow space would shine 
And kindle into glory around Him. 

If Christ were here I might not pray so long; 

My prayer would have such little way to go; 
'Twould break into a burst of happy song, 

So would my joy and gladness overflow. 

If Christ were here to-night, I'd touch the hem 
Of His fair, seamless robe and stand complete 

In wholeness and in whiteness: I, who stem 
Such waves of pain, to kneel at His dear feet. 

If Christ were here to-night I'd tell Him all 
The load I carry for the ones I love — 

The blinded ones, who grope and faint and fall, 
Following false guides, nor seeking Christ above. 

If Christ were here. Ah, faithless soul and weak, 
Is not the Master ever close to thee? 

Deaf is thine ear that can not hear Him speak; 
Dim is thine eye, His face that cannot see. 

Thy Christ is here and never far away. 

He entered with thee when thou earnest in; 
His strength was thine through all the busy day; 

He knew thy need, He kept thee pure from sin. 

The blessed Christ is in thy little room, 

Nay, more, the Christ Himself is in thy heart; 

Fear not, the dawn will scatter darkest gloom, 
And then from Him thou'lt nevermore depart. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 111 

CHAPTER X. 

The Confluence of Incredible Causes — The Idolatry of 
Covetousness. 

Few realize, though all know, the force of that saying, "The 
love of money is the root of all evil." Paul ranked covetousness 
with idolatry. By it Laban robbed Jacob of fourteen years of 
service. It tempted Baalam to compound with the princes of 
Moab. It beguiled Achan with a Babylonish garment and a 
wedge of gold. It conjured Saul to spare Agag in battle and 
to seize the best sheep and oxen under the pretence of praise. 
It inspired Ahab's piracy on the' vineyard of Naboth, and sped 
Gehazi, Elisha's servant, to seek gifts of Naaman the Syrian. 
Even the betrayal of Christ by Judas for thirty pieces of silver, 
and in the first and largest dispensation of the Spirit, where all 
things were thrown down at the Apostles' feet, Ananias and 
Sapphira insulted the Third Person in the Trinity by the covet- 
ous retention of a part of their possessions under the cover of 
a lie. It is recorded of Felix also on the bench "That he hoped 
money would be given him of Paul that he might loose him." 
So dominating is this idolatrous passion of covetousness, that 
the most elaborate canon of the Decalogue enjoins by an all- 
sweeping inclusion, "Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy 
neighbor's." The first great idolatrous passion, therefore, the 
love of money specifically, covetousness generically, was the 
Serpent that crawled in our Mission Paradise as the glozing 
tempter in the Eden of old, saying, "God doth know that in the 
day ye eat thereof your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be 
as gods." And, like the woman, "when they saw that it was 
pleasant to the eyes, and a thing to be desired to make them 
wise they partook of the fruit thereof and did eat." Then they 
began to sew fig leaves together and to make them aprons. So 
it was here; covetousness planned and hid. Cranfill, as chairman 
of a committee, increased Secretary J. M. Carroll's salary; and 
Carroll, in return, paid Cranfill over $30 a day, or $125 for his 
four Sundays in the month, to perform a duty that The Herald 



112 THE COMPLETE 

editor and every other preacher in the State was glad to dis- 
charge without fee or hope of reward. 

It was freely announced by many pastors that to object to 
these spoliations of the Lord's treasury, was "injurious to the 
organized work," and that "although extravagant and wrong, the 
very extravagance would help to raise the standard of the pre- 
vailing starvation salaries of the pastors in the niggardly 
churches." This was the argument from the human point of 
view. This covetous consideration was forced into this argu- 
ment at the expense of missions. At all events, the argument 
was used and published far and wide with astounding effect upon 
numbers of pastors. The appeal to the love of money, not only 
found response in covetous human nature, but beguiled many 
preachers by an appeal to carnal reason. "For," said they, "God 
hath ordained the salvation of men through the foolishness of 
preaching. Woe are we if we preach not, and we cannot preach 
without sustenance! It is a choice between evils; suppression 
of extravagance in the Board, and the consequent lowering of 
our living, already too low for our efficiency, or the support of 
Board extravagance, with the hope of increasing our meager in- 
comes, that we may the better proclaim the gospel to the people." 
This argument was freely plied by officials of the Board, and 
its force extensively and openly acknowledge by its employes. 
Men said: "We would rather have an extravagant Board admin- 
istration guaranteeing even the pittance of $400 or $500 a year, 
than to be forced to a lower figure diminishing our opportunities 
of efficient preaching, or driving us wholly into secular service 
for a living." The extent to which this argument was carried 
was quite astonishing. Men commonly acknowledged that they 
supported measures that they knew to be wrong, lest, opposing 
them, they might injure the organized work. This state of things 
was a severe test to those who were forced from their pastorates,' 
suffering the despoiling of their goods because taking the higher 
view; they refused to do evil that good might come. Thus, 
wherever Church Party pastors refused to compound with ex- 
travagance and proven embezzlement, "Supplements" were freely 



CONSPIRAOY TRIAL 113 

offered to their Churches on condition that the pastors should 
become "Missionaries" of the Board, or that the Board should 
have the right to name the pastor, or at least pass upon the 
pastor that the Church named. 

But it is refreshing to find so many men who lost all, seem- 
ingly, rather than sell themselves for supplement or salary, who 
are to-day, like the trees in Alcinous' Garden, laden with fruit and 
covered with flowers at the same time. There are E. S. Haynes, 
H. B. Pender, S. J. Anderson, S. H. Slaughter, W. H. Parks, T. B. 
McComb, T. B. Pittman, W. R. Selvidge, C. R. Guerrant, A. T. 
Farrar, T. J. Harrott, T. J. Powell, J. S. Elliott, W. W. Scales, 
A. D. Brooks, L. R. Scruggs — but we need a book for the list 
of those whose firmness polished their qualities like jewels ol 
gold. True, J. M. Myers, R. C. Burleson and others fell. But 
how did they fall? They rose as they fell! 



I heard a voice at evening softly say. 

Nor load this week with last week's load of sorrow. 
Bear not thy yesterday into to-morrow. 
Lift all thy burdens as they come, nor try 

• To weigh the present with the by and by. 
One step and then another, take thy way — 
Live day by day. 

Though autumn leaves are withering round thy way; 

Walk in the sunshine. It is all for thee. 

Push straight ahead, as long as thou canst see. 

Dread not the winter whither thou mayst go, 

But when it comes, be thankful for the snow. 
Onward and upward. Look and smile and pray — 
Live day by day. 

The path before thee doth not lead astray. 
Do the next duty. It must surely be 
The Christ is in the one that's close to thee. 

Onward, still onward, and with sunny smile. 
Till step by step shall end in mile by mile, 
I'll do my best," unto my conscience say, 
Live day by day. 



114 T H fe COMPLEX 

CHAPTER XI. 
THE INNATE MEANNESS OF NEPOTISM. 

Perhaps the most dangerous thing in any organization is the 
spirit of nepotism common to weak human nature. It is all the 
more dangerous because always more or less secretive. In no 
family have we known this penchant more strongly developed 
than in the Carrolls. This matter appears all the more striking 
when the practice of it was conducted in the most covert man- 
ner and approached cautiously, circuitously and remotely for 
years. Indeed, it took on the character of nervous sensitiveness, 
so strong was the inclination manifest in the two brothers. 

One illustration. In 1888 Rev.* A. J. Holt was Corresponding 
Secretary of the State Convention. For many years prior to that 
time Defendant J. M. Carroll had been '"Missionary pastor," or 
pastor on the usual salary then obtaining in Texas of from 
$800 to $1,200 a year. He had been on the missionary pay roll 
for many years at various places in the State. In full with the 
Triumvirate previously referred to in South Texas, consisting of 
Drs. Link, Law and Smith, were Drs. Burleson, Carroll and 
Buckner in the General Association. Two years had passed since 
the consolidation in 1886, when it was discovered that Defendant 
B. H. Carroll, President of the Mission Board of the consolidated 
body, was gradually preparing the way for a better paying 
position for his brother, J. M. Carroll. The process was tenta- 
tive, progressive and sensitive even to timidity. During all this 
time there was a "sore need of a paper at Waco," as Defendant 
B. H. Carroll inadvertently expressed it. Dr. A. J. Holt was 
half owner of The Texas Baptist Herald and Corresponding 
Secretary of the new Statewide body. The State Convention 
had so far adopted The Texas Baptist Herald as to suspend its 
order of business to vote the last item in consolidation, "Loca- 
tion," and by a small majority to Defendant B. H. Carroll's 
chagrin, located the paper at Dallas. That "sore need of a 
paper at Waco" never healed. 



CONSPIRACY TEIAL 115 

Note the difference! Secretary Holt had made clear, per- 
spicuous, faithful reports annually. Yet on July 3, 1888, the 
following entry was made on the Board Records: 

"Waco, July 3, 1888. Page 242. The following- resolution was 
offered and adopted: 

"Whereas, It is of great importance that every possible care 
be taken of the hard earned contributions of our people to prevent 
mistake in the handling of funds and to insure a correct manage- 
ment of every cent contributed; 

Therefore be it Resolved, that the Board of Directors appoint 
a financial committee whose duty it shall be at each quarterly 
meeting of the Board to carefully examine the financial report of 
the Superintendent of Missions; Auditor and Treasurer seeing that 
these correspond and what there is actually on hand, the amount 
of cash in hand reported and that vouchers properly numbered 
and signed and in hands for every cent paid out. 

"Resolved further, That the Superintendent of Missions be 
placed under a good and sufficient bond of $25,000.00 for the cor- 
rect handling of the funds placed in his hands. 

"The last clause was so amended to read a bond for $10,000.00 
instead of $25,000.00. — W. H. Jenkins, Secretary." 

No objection was made to this last resolution and, so far as 
known, none was thought of. It developed soon, however, that 
as long as Secretary Holt, then half owner of The Texas Bap- 
tist Herald, was Secretary of Missions, the exaction for the per- 
fect protection of the mission fund was counted extremely 
necessary. At the same Board meeting a step was taken with 
the manifest purpose of furnishing a salaried position for De- 
fendant J. M. Carroll as follows: 

"On motion a committee consisting of B. H. Carroll, A. T. 
Spalding, F. M. Law, R. T. Hanks and M. V. Smith was appointed 
to submit a paper at the next meeting on the propriety of appoint- 
ing a State Evangelist, to be under the direction of the Board. 
See Board Records, page 245." 

Then follows at the same meeting the usual "Committee 

Act": 

"On motion a committee consisting of B. H. Carroll, A. T. 
Spalding, F. M. Law and A. J. Holt was appointed to report on 
finance and the selection of an Assistant Superintendent of Mis- 
sions." See Board Records, page 247. 

That was in July, 1888. At the October meeting of the Board 

the denouement, as the French call it, the uncovering of the 

plan long in pursuance by Defendant B. H. Carroll, issued into 

the following: 

Waco, Texas, October 23, 1888. 

"The report of the committee to select a State Evangelist was 
taken up and discussed at length. After prayer, an election by 
ballot was held and J. M. Carroll was elected for one year at a 
salary of $1500.00." See Board Records, page 248. 



116 THE COMPLETE 

The usual "after prayer and election by ballot" It will be 
seen, was held after three months covert campaigning. No 
action was ever advocated, except upon the plea that the course 
recommended was the result of "earnest prayer." The "private 
ballot" was taken three months after the proposition for the 
election of an "Evangelist." 

In order that no grounds might arise for the discontinuing 
of the Evangelist, at the same meeting the following action was 
taken : 

"B. H. Carroll was requested to notify the State Evangelist 
elect of his appointment and arrange with him to begin work." 

Now all is ready for the following resolution: 
See Board Records, page 249. 

"The question of an Assistant Superintendent of Missions 
was then taken up and it was decided that no Assistant Super- 
intendent be appointed. It was agreed, however, to allow the 
Superintendent $300.00 a year extra for the employment of a 
clerk, so that he may employ all his time upon the field." 

"The Board then adjourned. — J. B. Cranfill, Secretary." 

If the Assistant Superintendent were elected it would ren- 
der the position of State Evangelist superfluous in the popular 
estimation of the denomination at that time. See? Indeed, the 
well devised and carefully conducted covert campaign for the 
election of Defendant J. M. Carroll as "State Evangelist" had an 
unwholesome flavor in the estimation of all and accordingly 
the whole scheme was quietly abandoned for a more favorable 
season, as the sequel will show. But "Bro. Jimmie" must have 
a place. So in April, 1892, Defendant J. M. Carroll became 
Secretary of Missions. It was upon the report of a "Committee" 
of which Defendant Cranfill was "Chairman" that the carte 
blanche to employ whom he pleased at whatever salary he 
pleased was quietly passed by the local Board, but never a 
word about it was published in any minute or newspaper. It 
was kept as quiet as a mouse around the house. Slowly, si- 
lently, but surely, the old bookkeeper and stenographer were 
displaced and the brother-in-law of Defendant J. M. Carroll, was 
made bookkeeper at a salary of $75 a month, performing work 
which the books show could not have occupied more than an 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 117 

hour a day, and Defendant Carroll's nephew as stenogrpher at 
$50 a month, which he publicly acknowledged and never denied 
for years, until on the witness stand he modified his state- 
ment, and claimed that it was only "$25 a month." Another 
nephew and a niece were employed also, four Carrolls and tne 
brother-in-law, five of the family at an aggregate annuity oi be- 
tween $4,000 and $5,000 per annum! This large income was at- 
tempted to be justified by both the Carrolls on the ground that 
"the work had so greatly increased that it could not be done 
for a cent less." It is sufficient answer to this that annually 
now Defendant Gambrell's bookkeeper is $700 a year with a 
stenographer at $300 a year, making a total of $1,000 a year, 
with the work annually reported quadruple that of Defendant J. 
M. Carroll during his entire term of service. All this was going 
on while, according to official announcements, "the missionaries 
were living on bread alone." With this unprecedentedly selfish 
nepotism going on while such a character as R. C. Burleson, ban- 
ished from the campus which his own genius of toil and self- 
sacrifice had, after nearly fifty years, laid out, and was now 
forced to a prorated liying of less than half the Defendants 
Carrolls received — with this shameful discrimination between 
selfish greed on the one hand, and wholesouled magnanimity 
on the other, a sad look into human frailty, and a glad, live 
look into futurity is necessary for the health of the soul. How 
often did the heart of this cashiered and uncalled Rufus Colum- 
bus Burleson, sing: 



We know not when, we know not where, 

We know not what the world will be, 
But this we know, it will be fair 
To see. 

With heart athirst and thirsty face, 

We know, yet know not, what shall be— 
Christ Jesus bring us of his grace 
To see. 

Christ Jesus bring us of his grace, 

Beyond all prayers our hopes can pray. 
One day to see him face to face — 
One day. 



118 THE COMPLETE 

CHAPTER XII. 
A UNIVERSAL QUERY ANSWERED. 
As Treated in Another Chapter. 

Nothing ever puzzled the court, the jury, the attorneys, the 
people of Dallas, and, indeed, of the whole State, like what one 
of the attorneys for Plaintiff called "the able-bodied swearing' 
of the Defendants. Nearly all the Defendants were preachers. 
Some few of them were lawyers. The lawyers, better trained 
in the nature of evidence, and the home-coming of their testi- 
mony, were more cautious and less vulnerable than the preachers. 
But it is not uncharitable to say that both preachers and law- 
yers, having pleaded not guilty, shaped their oaths around this 
pleading as around a death-angle. To witness from twenty to 
thirty Defendants, most of them ministers of the gospel, stating, 
under oath, things they knew to be untrue, was perhaps without 
precedent in the history of litigation. The attorneys for Plaint- 
iff stated to the jury that "In their practice they had never heard 
before, in any case, as much false swearing as they had heard 
from the Defendants in this case." And they called the jury to 
witness the fairness of this statement; "For" said these attor- 
neys, "we dare not make such a statement in your hearing, had 
you, gentlemen of the jury, not heard it with your own ears, 
and witnessed it with your own eyes. Such a statement, if not 
true, would greatly damage our client." 

L. J. Truett, attorney for Defendants, said, "If the jury gave 
a cent of damages, they would say by their verdict that every 
Defendant had sworn falsely." This statement of their attor- 
ney in behalf of his clients is as severe as anything said by the 
attorneys for Plaintiff. 

These animadversions are made as an indispensable prelude 
to the answer of the universal query, which is: How can men 
preach the gospel of Christ, some of them (notably Defendant 
Truett) seemingly With earnestness, profess "spiritual guidance" 
in these conspiracies, give to Missions (the people did not know 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 119 

anything of padded reports or pastoral supplements; they took 
tne reports at their face values), foster Education, and commend 
Beneficence, and then conspire to ruin a fellow-being, and, under 
charges, plead their innocence, absence of malice, ill-will, or 
desire to injure, and by wholesale false-swearing surpass any 
instance in the knowledge of the most experienced lawyers? 
After swearing in the week days to things, "so help me God," 
which they knew to be untrue, and all "for the Redeemer's King- 
dom," they went to their pulpits Sunday and preached that same 
Redeemer! 

Defendant Cranfill went from the witness stand to the tripod, 
and wrote "Sunday Morning Thoughts," giving tearful recitals 
as to how he "knelt at the grave of his pious mother "who taught 
Tommie and I (his grammar) to pray, 'Now I lay me down to 
sleep,' " saying that his joy was boundless to know that he had 
never given her pain by disobedience (substantially that), when 
those who were "raised" with him say scarcely ever son was 
more disrespectful to a mother. The witnesses are living. De- 
fendant Gambrell having been put in default in the estimation 
of the jury in nearly every material point in his testimony, in 
which he was saved from the penal code against perjury by his 
vigilant attorney confessing for his client that "he had made a 
mistake," went from the witness stand and wrote pious appeals 
for the spread of the gospel throughout the world, praising the 
piety of the President of the Board, Defendant Slaughter (whose 
breath was freighted with the fumes of alcohol), or planning to 
hide the "prostrations" of Vice-President Robertson (at heart the 
best one of the Defendants) at the expense of the State in the 
asylum for the insance, or the inebriety of his own son under the 
pleas of lunacy (meaning saloon-acy) after the son had worsted 
him in one of the hardest-contested fist-fights in the sight of the 
"neighbors ever "pulled off" in Dallas, calling the police-wagon 
himself and having his own son put in the calaboose (see regis- 
ter in the City Hall police court, with an attempt to disguise 
the name) — with all this and more, how could long Palisades of 
interrogation-points but rise? 



120 THE COMPLETE 

Still more dumbfounding were the oaths of Defendant Truett, 
and his earnest appeals on Sunday from his pulpit. No one be- 
lieved that his earnestness was feigned, or hypocritical his 
tears. Men do not long manitain this double role. It is this very 
metaphysical phenomenon that has inspired this chapter in terms 
plain and unequivocal. We have a large number of pious young 
ministers whose usefulness in the* ministry is at stake in this 
article. They need protection. No one else will give it. No 
one else, in the circumstances, can. They can not in the plastic 
state of their minds escape the soil here shown, unless the proof 
of them is given, without partisan bias, and conclusively. Their 
hearts as well as their heads need something convincing. There 
is a reason for this state of things. It must be a true explana- 
tion, giving the root of motives, concise and easily compre- 
hended, clear and beyond casuistry. The facts themselves are 
admitted. The confusion is manifest. The explanation must 
be beyond debate. 

Few are aware of the progress of civilization under the 
gospel. In this progress there is necessary friction. This fric- 
tion is not merely between Christians and non-Christians; the 
conflict is in the best Christians. Paul felt it. When he would 
do good, evil was present with him. There was a war in 
his members. Between the carnal and the spiritual, the carnal 
sometimes predominates, especially in men who have given reins 
to their evil motives. Agreement to injure a fellow-being, from 
motives however diverse, ambition, avarice, hate, resentment, a 
desire to gratify those who Carroll subordination of one mind to 
another — all these things break the restraints of the better feel- 
ings and lead to Conspiracy. 

No evil ever leaped to its flower and fruitage in a day. It 
grew. The time element is in the moral as well as in the vege- 
table world. Men grow into crime. They first crawl. And 
the greater the crime, the longer the time required, just as in 
the oak more time is required for maturity than in the annual. 
The four-o'clock blooms in the afternoon; the Conspiracy in the 
night. The face of the sunflower follows the sun; the Conspir- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 121 

acy waits till the sun goes down. No evidence was given tfeat 
any caucus was ever held by the Defendants except at night. 
The Board meeting at Houston in 1896 was held nearly all night 
Thursday before the Convention met on Friday. The Friday 
caucus at San Antonio in 1897 was in the night. The Menger- 
Hotel caucus was in the afternoon of Thursday; but that was 
formative, and did not reach its climax till Friday night. And 
the State-Hotel caucus at Waco in 1898 was at night. Conspir- 
acies seek the night; they are the true moral deadly nightshade 
of impassioned men. This time element had had time to work. 
It was in 1892, five years before the San Antonio Convention, 
that the retiring Secretary, Defendant Cranfill, had appropriated 
to his own use something like $10,000 of the mission funds. 
The new Secretary, J. M. Carroll, who had never had a salary 
exceeding $800 to $1,200 at the outside, was voted a salary of 
$2,500, with full nepotic power, all by recommendation of De- 
fendant Cranfill, who in turn received from Defendant Carroll 
$2,500 in cash, of which no account could be given except that 
"It was to pay missionaries," of which not the slightest record 
was made in any book, or shown by receipt, or acknowledged by 
any missionary who could be found who had ever received a cent 
(a confession of embezzlement on its face), besides $125 paid 
by Secretary Carroll to J. B. Cranfill for four Sundays in the 
month for several months, had grown familiar to themselves. 
And to hide it, the crime of Conspiracy was in their minds, the 
means of self-defense. Defendants B. H. Carroll, J. B. Gam- 
brell and others had committed themselves to an endorsement of 
these things; and, reinforced by the grievances of Defendant 
Hanks and others, Conspiracy flowered into fruit. 

But none, nor all of these things combined, could have re- 
sulted in Conspiracy in any of the Old States. Texas is com- 
posed of elements from all parts of our country, to whose minds 
none of these things seemed credible. That gave Defendants 
greater leave. What had grown in their minds had been hidden 
from the public. It required the same time element for others 
to believe it, that it had required for the Defendants to reach it 



122 THE COMPLETE 

Here they could proceed unchecked except by those who had 
observed it; and so they grew into it without restraint. 

But, as it could not have happened in any State out of Texas, 
so it could not have happened in Texas at any previous period 
of its history; and it can never happen again. "There is a tide," 
says Shakespeare; and there was a tide in Texas. The people 
were in a formative, even a transitive state. Always missionary, 
many had became largely omissionary, while a few men and wom- 
en were active, enthusiastic, like S. D. Nunnally at Bonham, G. B. 
Davis at Independence, R. C. Burleson at Waco, G. W. Tull at 
Canton, A. F. Sellers at Hico, and some others, all acknowledged 
in the Minutes of the Baptist State Convention of 1892 as the 
largest givers to missions Texas had ever known! Each and 
every one of these were strong for Church Party principles, and 
were supporters of Plaintiff as long as they lived. The example 
of these faithful missionary spirits had caught fire throughout 
Texas, which, but for the shams which followed, would have by 
this time aroused our 3,000 churches to marvelous things. Now, 
it turned out that the very spirit of missions upon our churches 
became the refuge of the Conspirators; they hid themselves be- 
hind "the organized work," and proceeded with arithmetical pre- 
cision and annual progression to pad their reports, to the de- 
ception of the people in Texas and out. Without stopping to 
enlarge, it is only necessary to cite President S. P. Brooks' re- 
port of the sham collections, annually announced, of $80,000, 
$90,000, $100,000, almost with decimal regularity, for education, 
and (to use President Brooks' own words) as uniformly "repudi- 
ated by the churches." 

At Chancellorsville, Hooker's right was exposed, and Jack- 
son struck it. At Chickamauga, Johnson's Federal division on 
Rosecrantz's left center was not in touch with the next division 
on his left, and he was commanded to move to the left to fill 
the gap. It required only ten minutes. But in that ten minutes 
Longstreet struck it! "At Waterloo," says Hugo, "God's rain- 
drops softened the ground, and delayed some of Napoleon's ar- 
tillery, their wheels sinking in the mud." Every battle in the 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 123 

world has had its crisis. Dr, Burleson said he had been in a 
crisis all his life. Texas was in a crisis in missions. The Con- 
spirators struck it! The result in each case is not known. It 
will never occur again. Providence never permits the wicked 
to shoot the same cartridge twice. 

But there are some acute ears that hear tones sounding 
around the world never heard by the multitude. Few people 
realize the changes that are taking place at the close of the nine- 
teenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. The whole 
world is in travesty. The secular spirit has percolated into the 
Baptist cistern. The love of money has become regnant. The 
morals of- men are impaired. There is no pessimism in this; 
rather, it is the prophecy of optimism. Old and effete supersti- 
tions are breaking up in order to the higher achievements of 
the gospel. Half the population of the world are just beginning 
to hear the gospel's joyful sound and catch glimpses of the "light 
that was never on land or sea." The 400,000,000 of Asia are 
waking from the sleep of centuries. Cruel dynasties will dis- 
solve, and dark religions will fall as icebergs melt under tropica. 1 
suns and forests fall with the gospel ax at the root of the trees. 

To reinforce this view it is not irrelevant to quote a recent 
utterance of Count Leo Tolstoi: 

"In the gospel it is said that during the transition from one 
age to another all kinds of calamities shall take place — treach- 
eries, frauds, cruelties and wars — and that owing to lawlessness 
love will slacken. I understand these words, not as a super- 
natural prophecy, but as an indication that when the faith in 
the form of life in which men lived is being replaced by another, 
when that which is outlived and old is falling off and being 
replaced by the new, then great disturbances, cruelties, frauds, 
treacheries and every kind of lawlessness must unavoidably take 
place, and, in consequence of this lawlessness, love, the most im- 
portant and necessary quality for the social life of men, must 
slacken. This is what is now taking place, not only in Russia, 
but in all the Christian world. In Russia it has only manifested 



124 THE COMPLETE 

itself more vividly and openly, but in all Christendom the same 
is going on, only in a concealed or latent state. 

"I think that at present the life of the Christian nations 
is close to the limit dividing the old epoch, which is ending, from 
the new, which is beginning. I think that the great revolution 
has begun which for almost two thousand years has been pre- 
paring in all Christendom, a revolution consisting in the triumph 
of true Christianity, and founding upon it the recognition of the 
equality of all and of that true liberty natural to all rational 
beings, displacing a distorted Christianity and the power of 
one portion of mankind and the slavery of another founded upon 
it. The external symptoms of this I see in the strenuous strug- 
gle between classes in all nations, in the cold cruelty of the 
wealthy, the exasperation and despair of the poor, the insane, 
senseless, ever-increasing armaments of all governments against 
each other, the spread of the unrealizable teachings of Social- 
ism, in the futility and stupidity of the idle discussions and ex- 
aminations upheld as the most important mental activity called 
science, in the morbid emptiness of. art in all its manifestations, 
and, above all, not only the absence of any religion in the lead- 
ing spheres, but in the deliberate negation of all religion, and 
by the substitution of the legality of the oppression of the weak 
by the strong, and therefore in the complete absence of any ra 
tional guiding principles in life. 

"That which has brought Christian nations in the position in 
which they now are began long ago. It began when Christianity 
was first recognized as a state religion — a state founded upon 
coercion, demanding for its existence complete obedience to its 
laws in preference to the religious law; a state unable to exist 
without executives, armies and wars; a state attributing almost 
divine authority to its rulers ; a state extolling wealth and pow r er. 
And such an institution, in the persons of its rulers and sub- 
jects, professes to accept the Christian religion, which proclaims 
complete equality and freedom among men, recognizes one law 
of God as higher than all other laws — a religion which not only 
reDudiates all coercion, all retribution, executions and wars, but 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 125 

also enjoins love to one's enemies; which extols not power ana 
wealth, but meekness and poverty — such an institution in the 
persons of its heathen rulers accepted this Christian religion not 
in its true sense, but in that distorted form according to which 
the pagan organization of life continues to be possible. 

"The greatest dam in the world cannot retain a source of 
living water. The water will inevitably find a way to escape, 
either through the dam or by washing it away or circumventing 
it. It is only a question of time. So it has been with true Chris- 
tianity, hidden by state power. For long the state kept back the 
living waters, but the time has now come, and Christianity is 
destroying the dam which restrained it, and carrying its wreck- 
age away with it." 

One would almost imagine that Tolstoi lived in Texas. Look 
at Defendants Truett and Gambrell advocating the expulsion of 
members who drink liquor, expelling Defendant J. M. Robert- 
son, penitent and poor, promoting C. C. Slaughter to be the 
head of tlie Mission Board, prosperous in ill-gotten gain — both 
of them addicted to drunkenness! Is Tolstoi unworthy on moral 
grounds for pointing out this transitional state of things? 

The Plaintiff has never said how far the religion of Defend- 
ants is centered in self, or how far in moral concern, how far 
their souls have gone towards the new life, or how far they have 
come short of it. The question of eternity is too overwhelming 
for him even to venture to think, when God is so great, so good 
and so strong. One thing he does know — that the smallest sin 
he himself ever committed against the love, the truth and the 
patience of Christ, is greater in comparison of turpitude than the 
most heartless sin of the Defendants, not excepting the deadly 
pistol-shots, even had they hit their deadly aim. The thought 
that the blood of Christ has covered my sins, reinforced as it is 
by the sure prospect of meeting my loved and gone before, makes 
forgiveness easy and the salvation of the Defendants not only 
possible, but unspeakably desirable, that they like others may 
repent and enter in. Surely, the thought, the assurance, of 
meeting the children and their mother there, and the children 



126 THE COMPLETE 

and their mother still remaining here, whose names have been 
shrived of ancestral dishonor, even by the verdict of incorrupt- 
ible courts and faithful juries, and after that by the confession 
of judgment by the Defendants themselves, with Christ and 
mercy, with courts and justice, with heaven and reunion of loved 
ones, there should remain, and there does remain, no more to 
wish. I wait to meet my own. 



They meet to-night, the one who closed her eyes 
Unto the pain forever and the woe, 

And one who found the mansions in the skies 
In all their splendor long-, long- years ago. 

What will they say when first their eyes shall meet 
Or will a silence take the place of words,- 

As only saints can know how strangely sweet 
A rapture such as only heaven affords? 

Will she who went before ask first for those 
Left far behind whom she loved so well? 

Or will the other, new to heaven's repose, 
Question of all its meaning — who can tell? 

And will they wander where the flowers are deep, 
Beneath their feet there in the pastures green, 

Where fadeless blossoms o'er the hillsides creep, 
And where no piercing thorns are ever seen? 

One went so long ago and one tonight 

Took the long journey far across the tide; 

This only do I know, they meet aright, 

And, meeting, both, I know, are satisfied. 



GOfiSPI E A O Y T R I A T. 1 % 7 

CHAPTER XIII. 
CONSPIRACY BY EVOLUTION. 

As confluent streams make rivers,, so precisely, concurrent 
passions make Conspiracies. Covetousness idolizes money; am- 
bition worships self. Both these passions seek peace, when not 
resisted. Covetousness compromises all things for gain. Am- 
bition stands not on any price for praise. Covetousness is cold, 
rather than cruel, from policy. Ambition is hot, but not cruel 
until opposed. These infirmities seek peace, and pursue it, until 
deprivation arouses the lion of human depravity and awakens 
these passions to war. No one longed for peace more than Na- 
poleon, but not until after he had well nigh conquered Europe. 
Alexander's ambition melted into tears as soon as he conquered 
the world. There is something in human passion analogous to 
chemistry. The affinity of material substances in their combi- 
nations, reactions and relations, control the modes and propor- 
tions of composition, decomposition, and decay. The passions in 
men, when brought into contact, modify each other, producing 
resultants hitherto unseen.. They not only reinforce each other, 
but they awake new emotions and turn loose passions hitherto 
hidden from themselves and from others. Thus covetousness 
and ambition, peaceable in themselves, brought into union by 
the medium of self-interest, raise the frenzy of war. Out of this 
principle grew the Crusades and the Inquisition. The love of 
conquest and the fire of ambition, seizing the insignia of ritual- 
ism, amice, chasuble and alb, maniple, girdle and stole, the 
empty emblems of a false and foolish religion, seized also the 
sword and poured out the blood of millions for the ruthless pos 
session of an empty sepulcher. And all this in the name of 
the Prince of Peace — "For the promotion of the Redeemer's king- 
dom." 

What was wanting for the union of these two passions, the 
love of money and the love of praise, covetousness and ambi- 
tion, the thirst for pelf and the thirst for power, was a medium. 



128 THE COMPLETE 

And that want was not far to find. Indeed, "The Hero of a Hun- 
dred Controversies" was already discovered, a rough ashler al- 
ready quarried and marked on the trestle-board for the comple- 
tion of the Conspiracy already begun. Or, returning to the es- 
sential medium for the union of the two, for the want of a euphe- 
mism that medium may be fitly called Cruelty. It is difficult 
to find a less severe appropriate word. It might be called the 
Ingenuity of cruelty, innate, practiced, matured. It had shown 
itself in childhood; it had developed in youth; it had matured 
in age. Without It, it is questionable whether the Conspiracy 
which had been formed before he came to Texas, would ever 
have issued into caucus, conclave, or execution. There was lack- 
ing in the Defendants, Cranfill and the Carrolls, the innate cun- 
ning, the practiced craft, and the cool cruelty of Defendant J. 
B. Gambrell. 

Defendants Cranfill and the Carrolls, who were frenzied, the 
one for money and the other for praise, preferred the acquisi- 
tion of these desiderata without conflict or friction. Give them 
their desires without exposition or blame, and they would treat 
their enemies as friends. But with Defendant Gambrell it was 
a source of pride and a ground of boast that he was "a fighter." 
He published in the Baptist Standard of December, 1896, that 
his advent into Texas would be accompanied by "work or fight." 
He was forced to confess on the witness stand, when the files 
of The Baptist, J. R. Graves, editor, were opened on his lap, 
and the conflicts he had engaged in with Doctors J. J. D. Renfro, 
Jobe Harrell, J. R. Graves, J. J. Andrews and others, in which 
he advocated "Foot-Washing as a Church Ordinance," opposed 
baptism as a Church Ordinance, and advocated other irregular 
doctrines, that he had had with the ministers named, and others, 
in his own words, "over a hundred controversies." It was his 
nature to fight. He boasted that he was a "fighter," and he 
bragged that his middle name was "Bruton," which Brutons 
were akin to the James Boys, whose career he approved and 
imitated after Lee's surrender, and of whose prowess he was 
proud. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 129 

Counting this trio, Cranfill, the two Carrolls as one, and 
Gambrell for medium, and there arose a tertium quid around 
which gathered weaker elements among the minor ministers of 
Texas, which resulted in the Texas Conspiracy. 

A Striking Similarity. 

Men's lives are much of the same mould; and opposite ex- 
tremes are often similar. Going east and west, men meet in 
antipodes. The Inquisition in the Roman Hierarchy, and the 
Conspiracy in Texas, arose from similar passions, and were or- 
ganized by similar leaders. The rise of the Inquisition came 
after the usurpation of power. The formation of the Texas Con- 
spiracy came from usurpation of power, incubated at Marshall 
in 1894, attempted at Houston in 1896, and consummated through 
Defendant Gambrell at San Antonio in 1897. 

Defendant Gambrell visited Houston in 1896, in search of a 
position. He was out of employment at Atlanta, Ga., and was, 
by his own statement, badly in debt. He came to the Houston 
Convention, and while there admitted that "some of the brethren 
wanted him to come to Texas, but he did not know whether the 
Lord wanted him to go to heaven by way of Texas or not." 
Whatever the Divine choice might be, he evidently wanted the 
Texas route to the glory land. And he sought it diligently. Now 
consider this contrast: 

Cathgart says: "Boniface, A. D. 609, solicited the title and 
functions of Pope of Phocas, who at that time sat on the throne 
at Constantinople. This Monarch was diminutive and deformed, 
with shaggy eyebrows, red hair, a beardless chin, and a cheek 
disfigured and discolored by a formidable scar. He was quite 
illiterate and wholly destitute of that culture and capacity which 
would fit him for his imperial station. From the rank of a 
centurion, at a bound he ascended the throne of the Caesars." 

In cruelty there is not lacking a similarity to the pushing 
of the three Federal soldiers in the well, in 1864. For, con- 
tinuing, Cathgart says: "Phocas had Maurice, his predecessor, 



130 THE COMPLETE 

and his five sons dragged forth from the church at Chalcedon, 
in which they had taken refuge. The sons were slain before the 
eyes of their father, and then he was dispatched. The bodies 
were then thrown into the sea, and their heads were exposed at 
Constantinople. Later, another son, Theodosius, was butchered 
by his order" at Nice." 

Nor is there lack of resemblance in their treatment of women. 
It was declared in Texas that some Church Party women were 
reviling "the saints" (Gambrell, Cranfill, Hanks, et al.), and that 
Paul classes them with "drunkards and fornicators." And the 
author of these words, J. B. Gambrell, declared that with these 
"revilers," men and women, "the denomination" (meaning the 
Board Party leaders) "could have no sort of toleration." Phocas 
was of like mind concerning the lives of his enemies, for Cath- 
gart, describing him further, says: "Constantina, wife of Mau- 
rice, respected as among the purest and noblest of women, was 
the mother of three daughters who were held in the highest 
esteem. These ladies were seized, by command of Phocas, and 
beheaded on the very ground where the father and sons had 
perished." 

But, be it said to the credit of Phocas, although he relentlessly 
murdered them, he never classed these beautiful creatures of 
God with "drunkards and fornicators," as did Defendant Gam 
brell. 

Nor does the resemblance stop here. Defendant Gambrell 
showed the same ferocious disposition as did Phocas, even to 
old age. "Other enemies of Phocas," adds Cathgart, "had their 
eyes pierced, their tongues torn out, their hands and feet cut 
off, or their bodies transfixed with arrows ; or they were scourged 
to death, or they were consumed to ashes. The Hippodrome was 
ghastly with human heads and limbs and mangled bodies. A 
baser wretch never stained a throne, or invited the vengeance 
of heaven." 

"Gregory, the Great, wrote to Phocas, on his accession to the 
throne, extending his congratulations in terms of unusual de- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 131 

light, saying: 'What thanks are we not bound to return to tne 
Almighty, who has at last been pleased to deliver us from the 
yoke of slavery (the mild government of the good Maurice) and 
to make us again enjoy liberty under your empire! It has pleased 
the Almighty in his goodness and mercy to place you on the 
throne.' " Very similar to this boast are the annual reports of 
Defendant Gambrell, thanking God for the most cruel deeds. 

It has been the covert of crime in every century to attribute 
the success of cruelty and wrong to the agency of the Almighty. 
So Gregory; so Gambrell. The caucus at San Antonio and the 
proceedings of the Board Party Conspirators from beginning to 
end were ascribed to the presence and power and agency of the 
Holy Spirit. How like the cruel phrases of the "knife put to 
the throat," "it must be smashed," "no sort of toleration," are 
the recorded deeds of Phocas! Out of the abundance of power 
Phocas pierced their eyes, tore out their tongues, cut off their 
heads, transfixed their bodies. With Gambrell, out of the abun- 
dance of the heart the mouth spoke. It is a law as infallible as 
gravitation, that the feelings of the heart issue in the utter- 
ances of the tongue. "Knife to throat," "must be smashed," "no 
toleration," are sparks from within. 

Matthew Paris says that, "At the request of Boniface, Phocas 
decreed that the Roman Church should be head and mistress 
of all churches; for in time past, the Church of Constantinople 
had styled itself the chief of all churches." Phocas repealed the 
law bestowing the title of universal bishop on the patriarch of 
new Rome, and gave that title with all its privileges to Boniface. 

"The Pope assumed it with joy, and resolved to test its worth 
immediately, by exercising the powers it conferred. He forth- 
with called a council, which met in Rome, consisting of seventy 
two bishops and some inferior clergy. He acted as if he were 
monarch of the whole church." 

"Thus the imperial power invested with its high sanctions 
the claims of the Roman bishops to universal supremacy over 
the churches." Phocas, the basest of usurpers and murderers, 



13$ THE COMPLETE 

anointed Boniface as soeverign of Christ's entire kingdom. The 
imperial decree, coupled with the supposed saying of Jesus, that 
he "built his Church on Peter," seemed to furnish all needed 
authority, mundane and celestial, for the lordly spiritual em- 
pire of Peter's successors. And these two considerations did give 
immense aid to the erection of the papacy. 

The supremacy of the Church at Rome was not an assump- 
tion that Rome was the only church, but that it was "the mis- 
tress of all churches," and held the keys of Peter in universal 
dominion. It included the other churches exactly as the State 
Convention included the other Churches. So that the assumption 
of supremacy of the Church in Rome was exactly analogous to 
the assumption of sovereignty in the Convention of Texas. 

"In the seventh century the warlike followers of the False 
Prophets conquered all Arabia, and passed like a whirlwind over 
the famous countries and cities of the East. Palestine fell, and 
its holy city became the prey of the victorious Omar; and the 
site of Solomon's temple furnished the grounds for his mosque. 

"Damascus yielded to the far-famed Hafed; and all Syria sub- 
mitted to the Moslem yoke. Antioch, whose patriarch proudly 
traced his descent from Peter, was forced to wear the chains 
of Islam. Egypt was snatched from her Christian emperors. 
Alexandria, after a siege of fourteen months, surrounded by the 
Saracens under the fiery Amrou, gave up 4,000 palaces, 4,000 
baths, 400 theaters, 12,000 stores for the sale of vegetable food, 
and an incalculable amount of wealth. 

"In ten years of Omar's administration the Saracens cap- 
tured 36,000 cities and 4,000 churches. In a hundred years after 
the prophet set up his oracle at Medina, his followers had seized 
Persia, Syria, Egypt, Africa and Spain. And they imperilled the 
independence of France and Italy. But in the East everything 
Christian either perished at their approach, or became palsied 
and panic-stricken. In a few years millions of Christians died 
In the fierce wars; and other millions became slaves, prose- 
lytes, or martyrs." 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 133 

In Texas the spirit was the same, the cruelty as severe; but 
(he success was lacking. 

Our acts our angels are, or good or ill, 
The fateful shadows that walk by us still. 



What Causes Made It Possible. 

The incredibility of these remarkable Conspiracies gave 
them the armature of improbability, which, before the conserva- 
tive, honest mind, stands for impossibility. It was unreasonable 
to believe that so large a number of men appearing before the 
Baptist denomination from year to year, representing the most 
sacred spiritual interests and manifesting the most earnest zeal 
for the salvation of sinners, could be otherwise than heavenly 
minded and consumed of zeal for the sacred cause they repre- 
sented. No matter that R. C. Burleson, S. J. Anderson, H. B. 
Pender, and practically the whole Baptist family in Texas, in- 
sisted upon taking the Churches into full confidence and giving 
the largest publicity to all things affecting missions, neverthe- 
less, that best element in religious nature, that "hopeth all things 
and believeth all things," halts not until after it shall have "en- 
dured all things." An explanation of "lost books" bivouacs be- 
neath the foliage of that charity that "never faileth." Nothing 
so develops the sympathy of our people toward a suspected 
preacher like the cry of "persecution." In all these years the 
Plaintiff never used the word as applicable to himself. It awakens 
the memory of martyr fires of our Baptist fathers. What Bap- 
tist heart is not quickened in its beat by the mere mention ot 
persecution? The thought of it reddens every page with the 
crimson of martyr blood. It is well that it is so. The ordinance 
of love has no statute of limitations upon it. The hands of sera- 
phim and cherubim stretch the mantle over our human infirmi- 
ties to cover the multitude of our sins. And the hand that ven- 
tures to look beneath this veil, however honest, conscientious 
and sincere, touches, like Uzziah, the ark of God, where the 
Shekinah of God's mercy shines ever. It is well. And the con- 



134 the complete 

sciousness of the need of this covering in each redeemed child 
of God holds the hand motionless from the touch of the sacred 
covering, and the eyes of love and faith and hope are by the 
very humility of conscience holden that we may not see. The 
Christian heart waits for explanation and helps find it. And 
for excuse there is no corner which charity will not allow us 
to explore. 

Hence, for four years, from 1894 to 1898, there was no charge 
of embezzlement of the missing $10,000 of mission money, but 
only persistent demand for explanation of a, not charged, but 
"apparent deficit." All this, too, when these cautious demands 
for published reports were officially and continually denounced 
as "attacks on the Board and the organized work." The real 
"attack," all the time, was against that conservative element iD 
the denomination, including such faithful servants of Christ and 
His Churches as R. C. Burleson, S. J. Anderson, W. H. Parks, 
and others, whose very Christian conservatism lost Dr. S. J. 
Anderson his presidency of Burleson College, which his own 
foresight, genius and zeal had founded; and R. C. Burleson, his 
presidency of Baylor University, to which he had given nearly 
half a century of devoted, laborious life, from which he was de- 
posed and in effect exiled, and which at last cost him his life! 
He had passed the age of recuperation; the sound of the grind- 
ing had become low; and, under the stress of his removal, 
charged by some with "embezzlement" and by Defendant B. H. 
Carroll with being either mentally irresponsible for opposing 
the high corruptions that were destroying our cause, or a "worse 
ruin impends" (meaning moral corruption in Dr. Burleson) — all 
this at an age when resiliency fails. The golden bowl was 
broken; the pitcher was broken at the fountain. Intellect and 
heart action gave way under the gloom of the black cloud over 
his setting sun. And, asking to be lifted until he could look for 
the last time upon the proud structure away yonder on the 
campus, where the brain and brawn and heart of his centered 
life had wrought for forty-seven years, upon which he had hoped 
to place his dying eyes as upon the gilded walls of a palace, he 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL loo 

sank back upon his pillow, and, after a lingering battle with the 
conquering last enemy, he died. Died of a broken heart! This 
was the end of that tragedy which, like the dagger of Jehu, 
pierced his great spirit when he received the communication 
that he had been removed from the presidency of Baylor Uni- 
versity. Few can realize the fearful stroke of depression which 
an old man, tenacious of rounding out a half century of a presi- 
dency which his own self-sacrifice, industry and consecration had 
earned and deserved, reading a document of doom which says to 
him that the sun of his hope and pride must set in disappoint- 
ment! And that, too, under the insinuation by the president of 
the Trustees, B. H. Carroll, that his conduct was either caused 
by the "black drop" of senility or a "worse ruin impends!" 

S. P. Murphy, G. W. Truett, and perhaps others, had charged 
him with actual embezzlement of the funds of Baylor University. 
It was a death stroke. The woman that God gave him, whom 
he loved to call his "angel wife," bears heart-broken testimony 
to the fact that when that document deposing him was first read 
to him, it was not only the "black drop" of age, but the black 
cap of execution to him! And he trembled from head to foot 
with uncontrollable emotion. Smiting his breast with his hand, 
he was convulsed with an unutterable sorrow, as if ready to faint 
and fall prone upon the floor. From that moment successful 
scheming set the death-watch over him until the day of execu- 
tion set his mighty spirit free. Only a man of such fine fibre 
can suffer as he suffered. Only a man of such vigor of intellect 
and strenuous vitality, can endure as he endured. That such 
a thing could happen at the close of the nineteenth century, at 
the hands of Christians, was so incredible as to exceed all reason- 
able belief. Incredibility was the first rampart of defense which 
the circumvallation of an all-conquering proof had to overcome. 



Days chance so many things — yes hours — 
We see so differently in suns and showers; 
Mistaken words tonight 
May be so cherished by tomorrow's light! 
We may be patient, for we know 
There's such a little way to go. 



136 THE COMPLETE 

CHAPTER XIV. 
A CHAPTER ON SIMILARITIES. 

The gloomiest places I ever saw are the Castle of Chillon in 
Lake Geneva, and the Bridge of Sighs in Venice. 

Dr. Wylie, author of "The Papacy," was in this dismantled 
Inquisition, nearly surrounded by the waters of Lake Lemaii 
(Geneva) the Castle of Chillon, in 1847, describing which he 
says: 

"We entered one apartment which was evidently the hall of 
torture; for there, with the rust of centuries upon it, stood the 
gaunt apparatus of the Inquisition; the corda, queen of torments, 
was used there. The person who endured the corda had his 
arms tied behind his back, then a rope was attached to them; 
a heavy iron weight was hung at his feet. When all was ready, 
the executioners suddenly hoisted him up to the ceiling by means 
of the rope which passed through a pulley in the top of the beam, 
the arms were painfully wrench backwards, and the weight of the 
body, increased by the weight attached to the feet, in most cases 
sufficed to tear the arms from their sockets. If he refused to 
confess, he was suddenly let down with a jerk which completed 
the dislocation. While suspended, the prisoner was sometimes 
whipped, or had a hot iron thrust into various parts of his body, 
his tormentors admonishing him all the while to speak the truth. 
A.t each of the four corners of the room was a pulley fixed, show- 
ing that the apartment had been fitted up for the Veglia. The 
vegelia resembled a smith's anvil with a spike on the top, ending 
in an iron die. Through the pulleys in the four corners of the 
room ran four ropes; these were tied to the naked arms and legs 
of the sufferer, and twisted so as to cut to the bone. He was. 
lifted up and set down exactly with his backbone on the die, 
which, as the whole weight of the body rested on it, wrought by 
degrees into the bone. This torture, which was excruciating, 
was to last eleven hours if the prisoner did not confess." 

Says Limborch, in his History of the Inquisition: 

"In a small adjoining apartment was shown a recess in the 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 137 

wall, with a trap-door below it. In that recess, said the guide, 
stood an image of the Virgin. The prisoner accused of heresy 
was brought and made to kneel upon the trap-door, and, in the 
presence of the Virgin, to abjure heresy. To prevent his apos- 
tasy, the moment he made his confession the bolt was drawn, 
and the man lay a mangled corpse on the rocks below." 

"Elizabeth Vasconellos was brought into the hall of torture; 
her back was stripped, and she was whipped with a scourge of 
knotted cords for some time. Soon after, with a red hot iron the 
executioner burned her on the breast in three places, and sent 
her to prison without any application for the painful sores. A 
month later she was scourged with the same brutal formalities as 
on the previous occasion. At a subsequent audience one of her 
shoes was removed and a red hot iron slipper was placed upon 
her foot, which burned her to the bone, and made her faint away." 

Llorente, formerly secretary of the Inquisition, and Chancellor 
of the University of Toledo in Spain, says: "I shall not describe 
the different modes of torture employed by the Inquisition, as 
that has been done by many historians already; I shall only say 
that NONE OF THEM CAN BE ACCUSED OF EXAGGERA- 
TION." Here is a witness with the records of the Inquisition 
before him; with a full knowledge of the horrors ascribed to its 
torture-chambers by the writers of the world, and he declares 
that none of these authors can be accused of exaggeration. Lit- 
tle wonder that Spanish mobs would aid the familiars of the In- 
quisition in dragging a prisoner to its cells ; or that Spanish 
parents would not lift a finger to hinder the same officials from 
hurrying off a manly son or a lovely daughter to their frightful 
tribunal. The "Holy Office" (the organized work) had terrified 
the nation out of its manhood. Neither the Almighty nor the 
Wicked One was half so much dreaded as the Inquisition. 

But There Were Ordinary Punishments of the Inquisition. 

Its mildest penalties were imprisonment, confinement on the 
galleys, or several hundred lashes administered on the public 
streets. 



138 THE COMPLETE 

The SanbenitOi 

An article known as the Sanbenito was prominent in the pun- 
ishments inflicted by the inquisitors. It was a woolen garment 
of a yellow color, descending to the knees, with crosses on it, 
says Gathgart: "Sometimes a prisoner was released and ordered 
to wear it for years. And whenever he appeared he was frown- 
ed upon, hooted, greeted with oaths, regarded with horror, shun- 
ned by all as quickly as his badge of inquisitorial vengeance was 
recognized. The famishing of hunger, the daggers of hate, and 
the execrations of a whole community drove him to despair and 
the grave. Those condemned to the stake had their likenesses 
painted on the Sanbenitor, surrounded by flames, and by devils de- 
scribed in hideous attitudes. The Sanbenitos of all who were 
put to death, and of those who were condemned to wear them 
for a term of years, as a punishment, with the names of their 
owners, their crimes and punishments, painted upon them, were 
hung in the Churches in which they once worshipped, that their 
memories might be held in everlasting detestation, and that eter- 
nal infamy might rest upon their relatives and friends." This 
was' attempted to be stereotyped against the Plaintiff by the De- 
fendants. 

"The children and grand-children of those whom it had con- 
demned are prohibited from following any honorable employ- 
ment; they must not wear any garment of silk or fine wool, or 
any ornament of gold, silver, or precious stones. Surely the 
children might be innocent if the father was worthy of the 
flames; and the grand-children, in most cases unborn, might have 
been spared a penalty, which justice never inflicted, and which 
only INIQUITY in a state of rampant rage could have suggested. 

By this law the hosts whose parents and grand-parents had 
incurred the wrath of the "Holy Office" were stigmatized; driven 
from respectable callings; and placed at the mercy of rapacious 
informers and sacerdotal tyrants. 

To protect my children from this attempted social stigma 
and ostracism, I dedicated the remainder of my life. I thank God 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 139 

and my faithful friends my deliverance was greater than I hoped, 
for I never hoped for a Confession of Judgment. 

The flames ended the earthly lives of those condemned to 
death by the Inquisition; unless when, as a special favor, they 
were strangled before their bodies were consumed. 

But in this case, as in the Inquisition, there was the Auto Da 
Fe — The Act of Faith. I was called upon to make public con- 
fession like that of the Inquisition. 

The name for such an exhibition is curious. It ought to have 
been called, says Cathgart: "The Act of Burning Love." But 
the nomenclature of the Inquisition is pecular. The "Holy Office," 
for instance, is a remarkable designation for such an institution. 
It was the organized work of fanaticism and cruelty. Governed 
by example, it is probable that Satan calls his hottest furnace, 
The Arctic Freezer; or his temptation to the assassin who com- 
mits some murder marked by fiendish barbarity, 'Benevolent 
Suggestions.' An Auto Da Fe was one of the grandest enter- 
tainments given in Catholic countries; it was arranged with spec- 
ial magnificence; the court, nobility, foreign embassadors, and 
all the dignitaries of "The Church" were there; (it was an open 
caucus; the people thronged to behold it in multitudes, in Con- 
ventions, so to speak) and learned in time to be delighted by its 
barbarities." 

Let the reader compare dispassionately the so-called Conven- 
tional Trials at San Antonio, after secret caucuses Thursday and 
Friday evenings, after announcement Saturday that free enter- 
tainment was withdrawn, forcing fully two-thirds of the messen- 
gers to go home Monday night, when the so-called trial was had. 
No charges were made except the denunciation of a libellous 
Challenge furnished L. M. Mays by an author unknown to him for 
years, R. T. Hanks, of licentious life, without a syllable of testi- 
mony of any kind and the announcement that "none was need- 
ed." A denunciatory prosecution was made without the right 
even to reply, the vote was polled by the Conspirators them- 
selves, one of them who had never attended a Baptist Convention 



140 THE COMPLETE 

before in his life, C. C. Slaughter, having announced that he 
would give $25,000, arising, turned around, mounted his chair 
in front of the messengers and motioned them with his hands 
to rise and vote for the Challenge! 

Follow the analogy. 

"The mode of conducting an Auto da Fe in Portugal was 
atrocious. The prisoners are seized by the secular magistrates 
in presence of the inquisitors and loaded with chains; they are 
removed for a short time to a public prison, and there they are 
taken before the chief justice, who, without making a single in- 
quiry into their crime, asks them separately: In what faith 
they intend to die? If they answer: In the Catholic, they are 
immediately sentenced to be strangled, and their bodies are com- 
manded to be burned to ashes; if they say they will die in an- 
other faith than the Romish, they are condemned to die by the 
flames. At the place of execution a stake twelve feet high is 
erected for each sufferer; half a yard from the top a little seat 
is made for the martyr. A quantity of dry furze surrounds the 
stake. The negative and relapsed are first strangled and their 
bodies are given to the flames; afterward the others go up a 
ladder between two Jesuits, who exhort them to be reconciled to 
the Church; failing to heed which the executioner ascending, 
places them upon their seats, and chains them close to the stake. 
Again the Jesuits admonish them, and if the response is unfav- 
orable they withdraw, giving them the cheering information that, 
The Devil is standing at their elbow to receive them, and carry 
them with him into hell fire. Upon this a great shout is raised: 
"Let the dogs' beards be made," which is done by thrusting burn- 
ing furzes fastened on long poles tgainst their faces. This cruel 
act is repeated until their faces are frightfully scorched and 
blackened; and it is always accompanied by jubilant shouts. The 
furze is then kindled at the bottom of the stake, the flame of 
which scarcely reaches higher than the seats occupied by the 
saints of God; and if they are exposed to the wind it seldom 
ascends to their knees. In a calm day they will be dead in thirty 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 141 

minutes; in boisterous weather their sufferings may extend over 
two hours." 

An eye witness quoted by Limborch, in his "History of the 
Inquisition," says: "Heytor Dias and Marie Pinteyra were ourn- 
ed alive; the woman expired in half an hour, and the man in 
twice that time. The king and his brothers were seated in a 
window so near as to be addressed in very moving terms for a 
considerable time, by the man as he was burning. But though 
he only sought a few more faggots, the favor was refused. The 
wind being fresh, and the man being twelve feet above the 
ground, six feet higher than the fuel, his back was completely 
roasted, and as he turned himself his ribs opened before he 
ceased speaking. All his entreaties could not secure him a larger 
allowance of wool to shorten his torments and dispatch him." 

At an Auto da Fe held in Madrid, according to Limborch, June 
30th, 1680, in the presence of the king, queen and court, a young 
Jewish girl was consigned to the flames. No charge was alleged 
against her except her race and her religion. She was just en- 
tering on her seventeenth year, and she possessed remarkable 
beauty. At the stake she appealed for mercy to the queen in 
words which ought to have moved a heart of marble: "Great 
Queen," she cried, "is not your presence able to bring me some 
comfort under my misery? Consider my youth, and that I am 
condemned for a religion which I nursed in with my mother's 
milk." The queen turned away, declaring that she pitied the 
miserable creature, but she did not dare to intercede for her. 
Any wonder that the blight of heaven should shrivel up the pros- 
perity of a nation that permitted such murders; that it should 
be stripped of its wealth and greatness, and become the halting 
cripple, the chattering dotard of earthly states?" 

Dr. Claudius Buchanan, vice-provost of the college of Fort 
William, Bengal, visited the inquisition of Goa in the East Indies 
in 1808, and was the guest of the second inquisition during his 
stay. He found the institution in full blast: and his host, in ad- 
mitting the truthfulness of the narrative of Dellon, a former 



142 THE COMPLETE 

prisoner of the Holy Office of Goa, confirmed the common reputa- 
tion of the inquisitio-n, as the most dreadful scourge that cursed 
any people. ("Christian Researches in Asia.") Though the 
Inquisition was abolished by Napoleon in Spain, it was re-estab- 
lished by Ferdinand VII., July 21st, 1814, when, for many years 
it continued to perform its odious work. 

The Inquisition in Rome in 1848 is illustrative of the fact that 
it still exists in our defective civilization: "When the doors 
of this diabolical institution were forced in 1849," says Rule, in 
his "History of the Inquisition," Father Gavazzi (whom the 
Plaintiff heard preach in Galveston on his visit to America in 
1880), the well known chaplain general of the Roman army, says, 
"He found in one of its prisons a furnace and the remains of a 
woman's dress; that everything combined to persuade him that 
it was used for horrible deaths, and to consume the bodies of 
victims of inquisitorial hate. He saw between the great hall of 
judgment and the apartment of the chief jailor a deep trap, a 
shaft opening into the vaults under the inquisition. As soon 
as the prisoner confessed his offense, he was sent to the Father 
Commissary to receive a relaxation on his punishment. With 
the hope of pardon he approached the apartment of the Holy 
Inquisitor, but in the act of setting his foot at the entrance, the 
trap opened, and the world of the living heard no more of him. 
He examined some of the matter in the pit below this trap, and 
he found it to be composed of common earth, rottenness, ashes, 
and human hair, fetid to the smell and horrible to the sight of 
the beholder. He says popular fury reached its greatest height 
at the cells of St. Pius V. To reach them you must descend into 
the vaults by very narrow stairs, and along a corridor, equally 
cramped, you approach the separate cells, which for smallnes? 
and stench, are a hundred times more horrible than the dens of 
lions and tigers in the Colosseum. Looking around he discover- 
ed a cell full of skeletons without skulls, buried in lime. The 
skulls detached from the bodies, had been collected in a hamper 
by the visitors. These persons never died a natural death; they 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 143 

were doubtless immersed in a bath of slaked lime gradually 
filled up to their necks, the lime, by little and little, enclosed 
the sufferers or walled them up all alive. The torment was ex- 
treme but slow. As the lime rose higher and higher, the respira 
tion of the victims became more and more painful, because more 
difficult. So that with the suffocation of the smoke, and the an- 
guish of a compressed breathing, they died in a manner most hor- 
rible and desperate." 

"It is well to remember that the inquisition was the creation 
of priests, and though Charles V., Philip II., and Frederic II. gave 
it all the holy and accursed aid which powerful rulers could ren- 
der any institution, for a long while the Catholic masses- regard- 
ed it as a wicked scourge." But they submitted to it from a false 
sense of loyalty to their "organized work." They could have 
abated the barbarism at any time. So in Texas, a few stalwart 
men could have put an end to this Conspiracy in a week. Men 
prominent in the Board Party of Texas now say, "the whole pro- 
ceedure was wrong," that "Hayden was right," and they prophe- 
sied as they now assert, truth would triumph, and the conspira- 
tors would be defeated. But returning to the Inquisition, how 
like those prophecies are the dark pages of the Inquisition! 

"You will search in vain among the musty records of the past, 
over all the lands and all the ages, for another Inquisition. The 
Romish Church stands alone in having a legal tribunal expressly 
established to torture, and if desirable, to kill her enemies. 
Mohammedanism has persecuted Christians at times, but never 
as Rome has done; and at no period had it a tribunal, with a 
staff of officers, suits of prisons, and codes of laws devoted 
exclusively to the enemies of their prophet. The ten persecu- 
tions of pagan Rome were violent, but they were spasmodic 
temporary, based in some instances upon falsehoods which perse- 
cution exploded; and they could not well have been protracted 
longer than the period which they cursed. But Nero and Domi- 
tian had no holy office, devoted to the work of discovering and 
destroying heretics. It is doubtful if heathen Rome could have 



144 THE COMPLETE 

furnished enough men of the kind, out of which inquisitor famil- 
iars, and the other servants of the Holy Office were made, to man 
an inquisition of the papal order for twenty successive years. 
It is more than probable that no system of idolatry, and no form 
of Christianity, could have produced and engineered such a pro- 
digy of wickedness." So this book is intended in part to make 
impossible another Baptist Conspiracy. But listen: 

The Inquisition in Spain moved in its operations with un- 
bounded vigor. Every night its armies of Familiars scoured the 
households of the nation, taking large numbers out of their beds, 
just aroused out of sleep, to the dismal dens of the Holy Office. 
Every day the inquisitors were engrossed with the audience room, 
the torture chamber, or an Auto da Fe. Every hour the spies 
of the Inquisition were dogging the steps of those whom they 
wished to entrap." The plea was, "The knife to the throat." "It 
must be smashed." 

Does the reader see any similiarity between this narrative and 
the Texas Board Party cry of, "When a horse kicks in the team, 
take him out and whip him." C. C. Slaughter. "The time has 
come when the knife must be put to the throat of those who op- 
pose the organized work." J. B. Gambrell. "Resolved, that the 
findings (against S. A. Hayden in his absence) be published 
in the great secular dailies simultaneously and it will crush 
Hayden." B. H. Carroll. "I tell you, Bro. Henry (Evans), 
we are determined to down that man S. A. Hayden." C. C. 
Slaughter. "The new organization (Baptist Missionary Asso- 
ciation) must be smashed." J. B. Gambrell. "I do not propose 
any terms with S. A. Hayden. I prefer to take a shotgun to 
Dallas and blow his brains out." J. B. Cranfill. "I had a pistol 
when I was trying to provoke a difficulty with S. A. Hayden at 
Houston." Rev. C. C. Carroll, son of B. H. Carroll. "I would 
rather hear the clods rattle on the coffin of my two sons than to 
know that they are on that side" (of Anderson, Burleson, Pender, 
Hayden, et al.) B. H. Carroll, Sr. 

The spirit of the Familiar Inquisition and of the leaders of 



CONSPIRACY .TRIAL 145 

the organized work was and is the same. But the 20th Century 
shortens the life of this spirit. In ten years it had ended in 
open Confession of Judgment to evade the severer penalties of 
the law. 

But thanks be to God for honest juries, incorruptible courts 
and a free country. Those who would persecute but can not 
should be pitied. Oh, the cruelty of the human heart! Oh, the 
intensity of human hate! Oh, the darkness of human sight! 
The tortures of these martyrs were so soon superseded by the 
delightful presence of Christ. 



Dear Christ, because the "way" 
That thou didst walk on earth was "sorrowful." 
And they that seek it find, oft marked with blood, 

: Thy footprints; shall I say: 
"Give me a sunnier path, more flowers to cull, 

And all the things which this world calleth good!" 

Nay, tender, patient friend, 
Though "sorrowful" that "way" — take thou my hand 
And lead me in it though I cannot see, 

Through blinding tears, its end; 
It matters not, I know 'tis to the land 
Where longing hearts meet face to face with thee! 

'Twill often lead, I know, 
Away from earth, to many a lonely height, ... - 

From which the world will seek to tempt me by 

The many flowers that grow 
Beside the pathway, and which, to the sight, 
Are fair and gay, but ah, so quickly die. 

And as I journey on 
I know my feet will one day reach the gate 
Of some sad Garden of Gethsemane, 

Where I must kneel alone 
In darkness, as thou didst, and pray that fate 
Will take some "cup" she pours for me. 

And if, O perfect One, 
Thou sayest these trembling lips that cup must drink; 
Quiet their sobbing, "till they say with thee: 

"Father, thy will be done," 
And when I feel thee near, I will not shrink. 
But to its dregs will drink it silently. 



11:6 THE COMPLETE 

CHAPTER XV. 
THE SAN ANTONIO CONSPIRACY TRIED FOUR TIMES. 

There were four Trials of the San Antonio Case of 1897, cov- 
ering 180 days in the Court House, or in all, about six months. 
This was the most extended litigation in Dallas County, and 
perhaps in Texas. 

1. In the first Trial the jury gave a verdict of $30,000 for 
the Plaintiff. This was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals 
on the technical ground that the trial judge, as alleged, did not 
sufiiciently define "Conspiracy." 

2. The second Trial resulted in a hung jury, some of the 
jury having been bribed by H. E. Cullom, a lawyer, partner of 
Defendant J. B. Cranfill in Beaumont Oil lands, and Jake Sitton, 
under Detective Ed Cornwell, in the employ of G. G. Wright, 
son-in-law and attorney of Defendant C. C. Slaughter, who were 
detected in their attempts to bribe, arrested, fined and jailed. Sit- 
ton was indicted by the Grand Jury. Before his trial came off he 
died. He at one time proposed to turn State's evidence against 
the employers. The other ten jurors favored a verdict of an aver- 
age of about $75,000 for Plaintiff. 

3. The third Trial also resulted in a hung jury, from bribery 
also. Juror W. R. Morris accepted a bribe from Detective Ed 
Cornwell in the employ of G. G. Wright. Cornwell paid $750 and 
G. G. Wright paid in person $50, besides supposedly $250 to 
Cornwell, making this case cost $1,000 in bribery fees for one 
uror alone. For a fuller account of this case see "Confession of 
Judgment." 

4. Pending the fourth Trial G. G. Wright paid $5,500 to have 
his father-in-law and clent, Defendant Slaughter, dismissed. This 
dismissal it seems was wholly unknown to the other Defendants, 
and even to their attorneys who were greatly agitated over the 
discovery when the case was called for trial. Dft. Slaughter 
had been bearing the bulk of expenses for Defendants, including 
heavy attorney fees. These fees, from various statements made 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 147 

by the Defendants, together with other expenses must have aggre- 
gated in the while litigations fully $50,000, and perhaps more. 
Defendant Slaughter had said at the beginning of the suits that 
he "would beat the case if it cost him every dollar he possessed." 
According to an inventory given in the public prints, his es- 
tate must have been approximately worth $2,000,000. This is a 
formidable sum to be used against one man without a dollar, 
especially when this $2,000,000 could be used in employing the 
ablest attorneys, suborning witnesses, bribing juries and sending 
the Baptist (?) Standard (?) to all who would receive it in all 
the Southern States where it might tend to create sentiment 
and help to "Down Hayden" or his paper. Parenthetically it may 
be stated here that Defendant Slaughter was the first to discover 
that with the formidable proof of conspiracy, bribery, perjury and 
malice with conflict in testimony on the part of Defendants, met 
by the incorruptibility of the courts and juries, money, while it 
may delay, cannot in the end defeat justice. The $5,500 there- 
fore was a bagatelle to what it had already cost Defendant 
Slaughter, and to what it would cost him if it went on. He 
complained bitterly, too, that having borne the bulk of the ex- 
penses for all the Defendants, scarcely one of them, although 
some of them were receiving large salaries, responded to his 
appeals for financial contributions to meet costs of suits. Nearly 
every Defendant, as Defendant Slaughter said, asked him to 
"please pay it for him and signed, 'Your Brother in Christ.* " 
This offended the financial, if not the spiritual, sensibilities of 
Defendant Slaughter, and he resolved to get rid of it the best 
he could. With a fund therefore of $2,000,000 to draw from, 
his son-in-law and attorney G. G. Wright, sought every possible 
avenue of escape. Bribery tried in the second and third cases 
had become too dangerous to pursue further. Something else 
must be done. Perjury was also dangerous. Rev. Henry Evans, 
a life-long friend of Defendant Slaughter, and his old schoolmate, 
to whom Defendant Slaughter had communicated the purpose 
of the caucus to "Down Hayden"— a man of strict piety, at the 
time personally unknown to Plaintiff Hayden, had long refused 



148 THE COMPLETE 

to testify for Plaintiff on the ground that Defendant Slaughter 
was Evans' friend. At last, after two Trials, "constrained by 
conscience," as he averred, he consented on the third Trial to 
testify. He stated on oath that at San Antonio he saw C. C. 
Slaughter in conference with a group of men, and after their 
conference was over, Evans asked his old friend Slaughter what 
was the subject of the caucus, and Slaughter answered: "I 
tell you, Bro. Henry, we are determined to down that man S. A. 
Hayden." When Henry Evans had testified to this, Defendant 
Slaughter mounted the witness stand and swore that "Henry 
Evans was a man he had never seen nor heard of before, and 
that his statement was manufactured out of whole cloth." In 
the fourth Trial, cut off by the Confession of Judgment of all the 
Defendants, it was susceptible of proof that these two men were 
acquaintances of long standing; that they were old schoolmates; 
that Prof. I. H. Baker, their teacher, would so testify; and that 
as late as 1895, two years before the San Antonio Convention, 
Henry Evans paid Defendant Slaughter a friendly visit at his 
residence in Dallas, where he spent an afternoon in social and 
friendly intercourse. Thus a disastrous proof of perjury await- 
ed Defendant Slaughter on the Fourth Trial. 

But this was not all, nor the owrst of all. Defendant Slaughter 
had been indicted by the Grand Jury of Palo Pinto County, once 
for cattle theft and twice for perjury, and in both perjury cases 
he had virtually ocknowledged his guilt. Judge A. T. Watts, an 
able lawyer, at the time of these indictments practicing law at 
Weatherford, and at th* time of the Conspiracy Trials a resident 
of Oak Cliff, and now a judge of the coutr at Beaumont, was his 
attorney in the two perjury cases. A particular official account 
of these two indictments is given in another chapter. 

The prospective disclosures of the Fourth Trial were to the 
Defendants appalling to the last degree. Prof. J. H. Baker was 
ready to testify that Defendant Slaughter and Henry Evans were 
his pupils. They therefore knew each other well. The moral 
sentiment all over Dallas was aroused and rose above interest 
into excitement. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 149 

PROF. BAKER'S CERTIFICATE. 

Granbury, Tex., Oct. 29, 1902. — To all to whom it may con- 
cern: This is to certify that C. C. Slaughter and Henry Evans 
attended the same school at the same time in Palo Pinto County 
before the Civil War. I was the teacher. J. H. Baker. 

With this contradictory testimony on the preceding Trials, 

with the uncovering of perjury and bribery now certain, there 
were only three conceivable means of escape or even ameliora- 
tion, all of which were exceedingly hazardous: 

1. The putting of the Plaintiff out of the way by the Maga- 
zine Pistol. That had been tried and failed. 

2. A return to the pleading of the first Trial of General 
Denial and Privilege, but not justification by the Truth of the 
Challenge which third plead of Truth had been so disastrous 
on the second and third Trials. Their return to the pleadings 
of the first Trial, advocated by Judge John. L. Henry, the able 
attorney for the Defendants, while it shut out much of the dam- 
aging testimony, kept the Defendants off the stand and shielded 
them measurably from further self-contradictions. Yet the 
Plaintiff could reproduce their testimony already given from 
memory and the stenographers which would leave the Defend- 
ants in a sorroy plight before the court and jury. But the at- 
torneys for Plaintiff believed that this abandonment of pleading 
the Truth of the Challenge would be the course pursued by the 
Defendants on the forthcoming fourth Trial. 

3. The third and only remaining conceivable course left the 
Defendants was Confession of Judgment. This was hardly con- 
ceivable. It left an indelible stigma on the Defendants, and it 
cast its shadow on their friends. It went into the archives of 
the American Baptist Historical Society, Philadelphia, and placed 
in the hands of the Plaintiff complete endorsement of him. The 
trilemma was most puzzling. Defendant Cranfill finally cut the 
Gordian Knot, added $5,000 punitive damages to the $5,500 previ- 
ously paid for Defendant Slaughter and agreed to pay costs in all 
the suits, which costs he stated, exceeded $4,600. The other 
Defendants acquiesced in this Confession of Judgment and De- 



150 THE COMPLETE 

fendants Cranfill, Gambrell and Truett proceeded to deny the 
Confession as they had denied the crime. Defendant Cranfill 
made several conflicting statements. He was joined in these 
by Defendants Gambrell and Truett, and the other Defendants 
and their friends all over the State began to repeat the denials. 
This among other things postponed the issuance of this book 
and necessitated a chapter on Confession. 



Who bides his time — he tastes the sweet 

Of honey in the saltest tear; 
And though he fares with slowest feet, 

Joy runs to' meet him, drawing near; 
The birds are heralds of his cause; 

And, like a never-ending rhyme. 

The roadsides bloom in his applause, 

Who bides his time. 

Who bides his time, and fevers not 
In the hot race that none achieves, 
Shall wear cool-wreathen laurel, wrought 
With crimson berries in the leaves; 

And he shall reign a goodly king, 
And sway his hand o'er every clime 

With peace writ on his signet-ring, 
Who bides his time. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 151 

CHAPTER XVI. 
DEFENDANTS DREADED THE COURT HOUSE. 

No means were left unemployed for "Continuances." The 
Defendants never willingly came to trial. The means resorted 
to were the "Love of Missions," or Defendant Cranfill's eyes. It is 
well-known that he suffered from his eyes many years. Plaint- 
iff boarded him and his family (free of charge) while he was 
being treated for his eyes, while he was Secretary, perhaps in 
1892, just before he went into the newspaper business on the use 
of the Herald's subscritpion list. As one illustration among 
many of the methods employed, the following is given: 

Application for Continuance. 
S. A. Hayden 

vs. 
J. B. Cranfill et al. 

In the District Court, Dallas County, Forty-Fourth Judicial 
District — And now comes the Defendants and say they cannot 
safely go to trial at this term of the court, because of the phy- 
sical condition of Defendant J. B. Cranfill, which makes him un- 
able to be present at the trial, or during any part thereof, on 
account of the diseased and painful condition of his eyes, which 
condition and the effect thereof are described in the affidavit of 
his attending physician, Doctor J. O. McReynolds, which is 
hereto attached and made a part of this affidavit; that the con- 
stant personal attendance of Defendant Cranfill is of indispens- 
able importance to said Cranfill, nad each of his co-defendants 
during this trial; that the eyes of said Cranfill are so seriously 
diseased and so painful during all the hours between sunrise and 
sunset as to make it physically impossible for said Cranfill to 
remain in the court house during the trial of the cause, or to tes- 
tify therein. That the testimony of said Cranfill is necessary 
In his own behalf to prove that he never entertained any malice 
toward the plaintiff, and that the acts charged against him by 
Plaintiff in his pleadings in this cause, were not the result of or 



152 THE COMPLETE 

in any respect caused by malice; that the said Cranfill will tes- 
tify that there was no conspiracy between the Defendants or any 
of them to do th£ acts charged in Plaintiff's pleadings, and that 
he himself did not so conspire with any Defendant; that said 
Cranfill is now being treated by a physician and expects to be 
well enough to attend the trial of this cause and testify at the 
next term of this court. J. B. CRANFILL. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 23rd day of June, 
A. D. 1902. SAM TURNER, 

Notary Public, Dallas Co., Texas. 

It will be noticed that this attempt to evade the disclosures 
of the court house was at a remove of nearly five years after the 
adoption of the Challenge in 1897. 

Plaintiff sought a trial always, without exception: 

Now comes the Plaintiff in the above entitled and numbered 
cause and, resisting the application of the Defendants for a 
continuance on account of the anticipated absence of J. B. Cran- 
fill, shows to the Court : 

First: That this is an application by said Defendants for a 
fourth continuance, three continuances having already been 
granted them. 

Second: That Plaintiff knows that for more than ten years 
the Defendant Cranfill has had trouble with his eyes more or less 
acute at times; that the Defendants have already had one con- 
tinuance granted them on account of the condition of said De- 
fendant's eyes, and Plaintiff refers to his application therefor 
filed in this court on the 18th day of October, A. D. 1900. Plaint- 
iff knows also from the statements of said Cranfill that the acute 
stages of his eye troubles are recurring and are reasonably to 
be anticipated by him and the other Defendants. 

Third: Plaintiff further shows to the court that this case will 
probably take a month or more for its trial, and that it is 
probable that at some stage during said trial said J. B. Cranfill 
will be able to attend the court and testify as a witness in this 
cause without serious inconvenience or impairment of his health. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 153 

Plaintiff further says that this case has been tried three or four 
times heretofore, and that said Cranfill has not attended any of 
said trials for any considerable portion of the time consumed 
therein; that he was absent nearly all the time during the last 
trial of the cause, one year ago. 

Fourth: Plaintiff attaches hereto exhibits A, B, C, being affi- 
davits showing that the facts stated in the affidavit of J. B. 
Cranfill are probably not true. S. A. HAYDEN. 

Subscribed and sworn to before Calhoun Knox, Deputy Clerk, 
this the 23rd day of June, A. D. 1902. 

Affidavits. 

The undersigned, being duly sworn, says that on Friday even- 
ing, the 20th, he met J. B. Cranfill on the streets of Dallas, ap- 
parently in perfect health; that the said Cranfill was walking 
rapidly, and there was nothing in his appearance to indicate the 
slightest physical defect. G. S. COLDMAN. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this June 23, 1902. 

E. T. LEWIS, Notary Public, Dallas Co., Texas. 

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally 
appeared Geo. A. Titterington who, being by me duly sworn, de- 
poses and says, that he saw J. B. Cranfill on Main Street in the 
city of Dallas, sometime during the week ending June 21, 1902, 
thinks it was on Tuesday or Wednesday; that said Cranfill was 
walking on the south side of said street, going east; that this 
was between the hours of 10 a. m. and 5 p. m. ..„ . ,... ■ 

GEO. A. TITTERINGTON. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me on this the 23rd day of 
June, 1902. H. W. JONES, Dist. Clerk, Dallas Co., Texas. 

By Calhoun Knox, Deputy. 

The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that 
last Monday, the 16th, he saw the Defendant J. B. Cranfill driv- 
ing out towards the Fair Grounds in a buggy at about 9 o'clock 
a. m.r that the said Cranfill was apparently in perfect health, 
and affiant noticed no defect in his eyes. R. L. GODBOLD. 



154 THE COMPLETE 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 23rd day of 
June, 1902. W. L. FORD, Notary Public, Dallas Co., Texas. 

Thomas E. Conn, being duly sworn, deposes and says that 
he is well acquainted with J. B. Cranfill, one of the defendants 
in the above entitled cause; that on Sunday he saw the said 
Cranfill riding in a buggy, apparently in good health; that the 
said Cranfill passed the house of affiant in his buggy on Sunday 
morning and again in the afternoon; that affiant resides in the 
city of Dallas, and within the last two weeks has frequently seen 
the said J. B. Cranfill on the streets of Dallas, apparently in 
perfect health and attending to his ordinary business affairs. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 24th day of June, 
1902. H. W. JONES, District Clerk, 

By CALHOUN KNOX, Deputy. 

Defendant Cranfill attended Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show 
three or four nights before he made this oath. That show was 
lighted up by arc lights with the blazing brightness of the noonday 
sun. But inasmuch as he swore he was unable to attend the trial 
on account of his eyes and inasmuch as his accounts were to 
receive another scrutinizing examination, the Court gave him 
the continuance in spite of the proof that he had been riding 
in the bright sun of the day before, had been on the streets 
regularly during the preceding week in the blazing sun and 
had been in attendance upon Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show 
three or four nights before in the presence of thousands of 
the citizens of Dallas. 

As proof that Defendant Gambrell joined Defendant Cranfill 
in an effort to postpone the trial, Defendant Gambrell swore 
at the same trial that Defendant Gentry was sick and his testi- 
mony was essential in the trial. 

Defendant J. C. Gentry's testimony was not only not "in- 
dispensable" to the case, but had been exceedingly detrimental 
to the Defendants on former trials. It is believed the Court 
gave this part of the application for a continuance no consid- 
eration whatever. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 155 

This is only a sample of those desperate efforts of the De- 
fendants from the first Conspiracy case through six years to 
shy from the light of the court room as those conscious of 
their own guilt avoid the light of truth. The reader is not 
further interested in the detail of all these delays. 



Hold on, my heart, in thy believing — 
The steadfast only wins the crown; 

He who, when stormy winds are heaving-, 
Parts with his anchor, shall go down; 

But he whom Jesus holds through all, 

Shall stand, though heaven and earth shall fall. 

Hold in thy murmurs, heaven arraigning — 
The patient see God's loving face; 

Who bear their burdens uncomplaining, 
'Tis they who have the Father's grace; 

He wounds himself who braves the rod 

And sets himself to fight with God. 

Hold out! There comes an end to sorrow; 
Hope from the dust shall conquering rise; 
The storm foretells a summer's morrow; 

The cross points on to Paradise; 
The Father reigneth! cease all doubt; 
Hold on, my heart, hold in; hold out! 



156 THE COMPLETE 

CHAPTER XVII. 
THE SAN JACINTO OIL SWINDLE. 

Long ago Caesar wrote: "All Gaul is divided into three parts." 
Were he alive today he would find it no longer divided. All gall 
seems to have been appropriated by these Defendants. Three 
hundred years before, Menander, the Greek poet, declared: 
"There is no better provision for life than impudence and a 
brazen face." Paul quoted him in First Corinthians 15:33: "Evil 
company corrupts good manners." There are none, however rep- 
rehensible his conduct, who finds not an advocate. All Baptist 
papers had the chivalry to apologize for "Defendant" Cranfill's 
"dazzling $9,000,000" in the San Jacinto Oil Company. The Texas 
Baptist-Herald did its best to protect the people, but except with 
its immediate readers, it was shooting straws against the wind. 
However, with the rarest exceptions the readers of The Texas 
Baptist Herald came out whole, or rather they did not go in. For 
unparalleled, incredible, unthinkable, stupenduous, monumental, 
diabolical, gumfregation of hypostenority, nothing short of plu- 
tonian miracles can for a moment segatiate, or compare, with 
the copperosity of this "spirit-guided" gush, slush and crush of 
the San Jacinto exploitations! Nothing like it except the Gal- 
veston flood ever rose or reigned or fell. It would be impossible 
to give any definite idea of the San Jacinto monumental, pyra- 
midal fraud. It is the Gizeh of modern ministerial fraudation. 

1. "The San Jacinto Oil Company was organized at Beau- 
mont, Texas, San Jacinto Day, April 21, 1901." — J. B. Cranfill in 
Circular. 

In point of fact, the San Jacinto Oil Company was not or- 
ganized until several weeks afterwards. This did not affect the 
oil market, and was not material, but it was indicative! 

2. Did the purchasers of the San Jacinto Oil "Stock" know 
that the cheap scraps of land inventoried to the Secretary of 
State, to procure the charter, have never brought a solitary drop 
nf oil? Nor has a solitary cent ever been expended in develop- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 157 

ing these cheap lands ! ! This shows that Defendant Cranfill 
began selling this Stock on lands when he had no confidence in 
them! If not so, why did he not develop them? And yet h« 
sold Stock on these lands with the statement that he "would 
develop them!" But he did not do it. What did he do? 

3. Having sold Stock on these non-productive oil lands (he 
being judge), he had to do something. He had the money. What 
next? He bought with $7,000 of this money about fifty feet 
square, within 450 feet of a producing well, drew a map of the 
oil field, took a picture of a gusher belonging to another party; 
put it on his advertising circulars, and sent it out to the gullible 
saying: "If our first well is what we hope * * * this one well 
alone will earn, in net profits for stockholders, over $9,000,000 
a year!" He adds: "This picture of our prospect is not over- 
drawn!" "Stock has been sold only for the purpose of develop- 
ment, and not at all for profit or speculation!" "It is as legiti- 
mate to plant a drill in the ground and drill for oil, as it is to 
plant a grain of corn in the ground and expect a grain of corn" 
* * * "And one is as legitimate as the other!" He failed to men- 
tion that drill planting or corn planting with other people's mon- 
ey and pocketing the proceeds is another thing. By his own con- 
fession he sold "Stock" on the ground in which he never "planted 
a drill" from that day until this. He had no more confidence 
in its giving oil than he had in dipping it out of what he calls 
the "Oil Pool in the Gulf of Mexico." 

4. By his own sworn statement: "These tracts (meaning 
the ground on which the gushers were subsequently developed) 
were bought subsequently." (That is, to his selling Stock on 
oilless lands.) Thus while he was circularizing the Baptist peo- 
ple of the country with a picture of another oil well, saying 
that his prospective gusher would "earn in net profits for the 
stockholders over $9,000,000 a year," he was able to buy these 
lots at $7,000 and $7,500 a piece! Actual gushers could be 
bought for from $10,000 up to $15,000. For this $22,000 he was 
selling $250,000 par value of Stock! But this is all nothing as 
compared with what will appear later. That he was shying 



158 THE COMPLETE 

against the after-clap while exaggerating with an aptitude born 
only of a morbid thirst for gold, quivering between genius and 
insanity, he was saying as he did in this first circular: "We 
urge no one to take our Stock." "We give the facts." "There 
will never be an attempt to freeze out the stockholders." "Their 
every interest will be as safely protected as will the interests 
of the incorporators of the Company!" Indeed! Look at this: 
Cheap lands without the slightest prospect of oil, capitalized at 
$250,000, $125,000 for the Promoters, Company $125,000, just "to 
develop these lands!" But these lands were never developed! 
Three small tracts were bought for $22,000, and advertised as 
worth "Net profits for our stockholders over $9,000,000 a year!" 
5. Look at the Picture of a Gusher not his own in this first 
circular and a map with black dots showing his "lands" on which 
he has never invested a nickel and with no certainly of a drop 
of oil on the three small lots he bought for $22,000 out of money 
the stockholders had sent him! Then he hired a man to drill 
and on October 26, 1901, he struck Gushers No. 2. The three 
lots had been numbered 1, 2 and 3. Boring had begun on num- 
bers 1 and 2. Number 2 came in first. Now this well, even if 
not another had come in, would have given the stockholders at 
least a fair interest on their investment had it been faithfully 
and honestly aplied. 

"6. Ten days later, December 3, 1901, gusher number 1 came 
in. Here was a good chance for revenue to the stockholders, 
no matter what risks had been run on the purchase of Stock 
on the oilless hand£. 

7. The first circular sent out with a picture of another man's 
Gusher, indicating $9,000,000 net profits on oil at 50 cents a bar- 
rel," "low price," "very low price," went right on doing its 
work while he went on selling oil at 50 cents a barrel as ad- 
vertised? No. But at 9 and 10c a barrel! Not a word to the 
stockholders. This went on through January, February, March, 
April, five months! Then it was announced that they "would 
pay a dividend of 5 per cent in a few weeks." Meanwhile he 
was conjuring with the names of Joshua Levering, George W. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 159 

Carroll, Pappy Buckner, et al., carrying the impression that as 
Baptists and business men "they were too wise to err and too 
good to do wrong," therefore a fortune was in sight for those 
wise enough, good enough and early enough to seize it. 

8. Opril, 1, 1902: "We own two of the best wells on the 
Beaumont field." "One of these is the strongest oil well on 
earth." 

"A number of our fifty tracts in Nacogdoches County are oil 
lands." 

"It seems evident that our land near Sour Lake and Saratoga 
is oil land." 

"First-class gushers have been found at both these points." 

"We have completed our own pipe line and loaded racks to 
Gladdys City." 

"We own fifty cars which are employed now in shipping out 
our oils to our customers." 

"These cars are paid for." , 

"We have closed contracts for the sale of over 2,000,000 
barrels of oil." 

"Nearly all our Treasury Stock has been sold." 

"This Stock is now being sold at 25 cents a share." 

"If you secure any of the stocks you will have to order inb 
mediately." 

"We hope to declare dividends of from 5 to 10 per cent about 
August 1." 

"After that * * * every three months." 

"Our Company will pay handsome dividends right along." 

"I believe our stock * * * will double in value in twelve 
months time." 

"WE HAVE IN CONTEMPLATION THE ERECTION OP AN 
OIL REFINERY" ! ! ! 

"Beaumont oil contains 50 per cent of illuminating oil. "An 
Oil Refinery will pay a profit of from 50 to 100 per cent per an 
nura"! ! ! 

"It is not the purpose of the San Jacinto Company to es- 
tablish the refinery." "The plan is to organize an independent 
Refining Company, capital stock $500,000." ! ! ! ! 

"Probably in Fort Worth or Dallas." 

"We begin as with the San Jacinto Oil Company at 5 cents 
a share." 

"Of course the Refinery will buy the oil to refine from the 
San Jacinto Oil Company." 



160 THE COMPLETE 

"The two corporations to be very intimately connected." 

"Our Company alone expects to have enough contracts TO 
KEEP 500 CARS BUSY!" 

"With 500 cars actively employed that San Jacinto Company 
can earn 100 per cent dividends annually"! ! ! ! 

"If the Stockholders of our Oil Company will subscribe for 
the Stock of these two additional Companies * * * they will 
greatly increase the value of their San Jacinto Oil Stock." See? 

"No Company ever organized * * * has achieved such won- 
derful results." 

"Our career has fairly begun." "Order direct from me." — J. 
B. Cranfill in Circular April 1, 1902. 

(That was April Fools' Day.) 

Now look at these statements and analyze them: 
First: The San Jacinto Oil Company was to be junted into 
the San Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank Car Company. This 
Refining Company was to issue 5,000,000 shares at 10 cents, 
$500,000. It would increase the Oil Company 100 per cent divi- 
dends annually. It would not draw anything out, but pour mil- 
lions in PROVIDED the San Jacinto Stockholders would buy 
the Refining Oil Stock. See? Now notice developments from 

this on: 

■ » 

CaH for Stockholders' Meeting. 

To the Stockholders of the San Jacinto Oil Company: 

A meeting of the Stockholders of the San Jacinto Oil Com- 
pany is here called to convene at the city of Beaumont, Texas, 
on Wednesday, April 30, at 10 a. m., at the office of the San 
Jacinto Oil Company, for the purpose of electing a board of 
directors for the ensuing year. It is hoped that you can be 
present at this meeting. If you cannot come, however, please 
sign the enclosed proxy and return to me. 

Very truly yours, J. B. CRANFILL, 

President San Jacinto Oil Co. 
You see, he is getting ready for something! Of course the 
Stockholders in New York, Pennsylvania, Canada, Michigan, 
Virginia, Arkansas, even Texas, could not attend. But: "Please 
sign the enclosed proxy and return to me." He held the proxy 
for nearly all the stock himself! He could do anything he 
wanted to! 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 161 

Second. April 30, 1902, "A dividend of 5 per cent was de 
clared and the money sent to the Stockholders." Stock was 
now selling at 25 cents a share, and had been for several 
months! And yet what do we find? Why, it took but $12,500 
to pay 5 per cent dividends on the whole stock of $250,000 at 
par value of 10 cents a share. But the stock had been sold, 
first at 5 cents, then 10, 15, 20 and from December, 1901, at 
25 cents a share. 

Third. May 5, 1902, on this day, less than a week after the 
dividend of 5 per cent was declared, the "Reverend" Cranfill 
sends out another Circular Letter, from which are taken the 
following extracts : 

"It has been decided to organize the one new Company to 
be known as the San Jacinto Oil Refining & Tank Car Company, 
and that this Company shall handle both propositions * * * 
in order to save double expense of * * * two distinct or- 
ganizations." 

"J. B. Cranfill to be president of the New Company." 

"The Refinery will be erected at Dallas." 

"The Refining Company has made a contract for crude oil 
with the San Jacinto Oil Company." (That is, himself with 
himself.) 

"Beaumont Oil is a magnificent oil for refining purposes." 

(The Beaumont Oil Company was to be so related to the 
Refining Company as to increase its value 100 per cent!) 

"I am told that the Corsicana Refinery pays a dividend of 
500 per cent." 

(Heading now towards Corsicana, away from Beaumont.) 

"Of course, as long as the Beaumont Oil lasts (and there 
is no diminution whatever in the supply) we will refine the 
oil of the San Jacinto Oil Company and we will pay into the 
treasury of that Company not less than $50 per day after our 
Refinery begins operations." 

Has the reader seen that preparatory phrase, "As long as 
the Beaumont oil lasts?" Here for the first time, April 30, 
1902, five days after the "dividend," comes the hint that the 
Beaumont oil may not "last!" Why that caution? "There is 
no diminution what ever in the supply!" Why raise the ques- 
tion of the Beaumont oil "lasting" when there is "no diminu- 
tion whatever?" Was there anything in the "Reverend" Cran- 
fill's mind? In these five days he has changed the location of 



162 THE COMPLETE 

the Refinery from Beaumont to Dallas, nearer the Corsicana 
oil fields. This makes things safe. But "Of course, as long as 
the Beaumont oil lasts," etc. The Refining Company issued 
stock $500,000 par value. San Jacinto Stock is about all gone! 
Ho! for the Refining stock! Refinery to be at Dallas! "Of 
course, as long as the Beaumont oil lasts we will refine the 
oil of the San Jacinto Oil Companny." (But look out for salt 
water.) 

Preparation for the Change. 

"It is our purpose * * * to own * * * a line of 
oil cars, which will be under tribute to the San Jacinto Oil 
Company for transportation of its crude product, and of the 
San Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank Car Company for the trans 
portation of the refined product." 

"We also expect to own and operate a line of tank steam- 
ers." 

"A limited amount of this stock will be on sale at 5 cents 
per share." 

"This will be withdrawn within a short time." 

"Order by return mail." (Be quick.) 

"Hundreds now regret they did not buy larger blocks of 
the San Jacinto Oil stock." 

"We began that stock at 5 cents and colsed it out at 
25 cents, an advance of 500 per cent." 

"The stock of the Refining Company will have an equally 
favorable history." 

"Be prompt * * * this stock will be advanced to 10 
cents * * * without notice * * * within a very 
short time." 

"Then the stock cannot be bought again at this ground 
floor price." 

"I feel we ought to take our original friends and Stockhold- 
ers in the San Jacinto Oil Company * * * at the ground 
floor price." 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL, President 

Oil Refining & Tank Car Company, May 5, 1902. 

Transition from Crude Oil to Refinery. 

9. June 9, 1902. "The two great wells of the San Jacinto 
Oil Company are as strong today as they were when first brought 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 163 

"The evidence multiplies that the supply of oil in the Beau 
mont field * ' * * * is permanent, and practically with- 
out limit." 

"Our Refining Company is progressing splendidly." 

"We have purchased 110 acres of land here at Dallas upon 
which to erect a Refinery." 

"Funds are in hand * * * to pay for the Refinery." 

"The Refinery stock is most popular." 

"We have been selling the stock at 5 cents per share,, which 
is a ground-floor price." (Notice that phrase, "a ground-floor 
price." It means something.) 

"You can secure this stock until June 20 at 5 cents * * * 
the ground-floor price." 

"The San Jacinto Oil Company will pay another 5 per cent 
dividend on October 1." 

"I think our third quarterly dividend, which will be payable 
January 1, 1903, will be in the neighborhood of 10 per cent." 

"This demonstrates * * * what the value of the Refin 
ery stock is to be." 

"Many now regret that they did not buy San Jacinto Oil 
Company stock when it was 5 cents per share." 

"I did not give any advice" then, nor do I give any now." ! ! ! ! ! 

"But I am in position to know that the Refinery stock is a 
substantial investment." 

"Honorable Joshua Levering of Baltimore has joined our 
Directory." (Note that statement for future use.) 

"Our proposition is a thoroughly honest one." 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 

Exit Crude Oi!; Enter Refinery. 

10. September 15, 1902, "In conformity with my policy to 
keep our shareholders thoroughly informed, I write you this 
letter." (Now only two weeks till the second promised divi- 
dend, October 1!) 

"Since our last letter was sent you all the Beaumont wells 
have ceased to flow." (All, mind you; not a few, but "ALL.") 

"They- ceased flowing the last of July." (Wasn't this keep- 
ing them "thoroughly informed" — from July 30 to September 
15, really sent out about September 20, forty days!) 

"No. 2 yields nothing but salt water." 

"Meanwhile we are finishing our No. 3." (It came in later, 
but the Stockholders never got a cent of it.) 

"We have just paid out profits to Shareholders in the 5 per 
cent dividend." "It was therefore necessary for us to borrow 



164 THE COMPLETE 

$20,000" ! ! ! ! (This $20,000 was borrowed by J. B. Cranflll, 
President of the Oil Company, from J. B. Cranfill, President of 
the Refinery, who took a mortgage to secure it on the San 
Jacinto Oil Company!!! It took only '$12,500 to pay a 5 per 
cent dividend. But he borrowed $20,000 to pay it.) 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL, President 

San Jacinto Oil Company, Sept. 15, 1902. 

Refinery Stock or Nothing. 

Thus it will be seen that he is junting the San Jacinto Oil 
Company into the San Jacinto Oil Refining & Tank Car Com- 
pany, and later it will be seen that this latter Refining Company 
went by his pipe line into his pockets. 

All this while, though the gas pressure had somewhat dimin- 
ished, all the wells had not stopped flowing! And the "Rever- 
end" Cranfill went right on selling oil out of his wells. The Oil 
Investors Journal, published at Beaumont, commenting on the 
"Reverend" Cranfill's circular of September 15, said: "The writer 
(Cranfill) has not been as frank with the Stockholders of his 
Company as he might have been." "Dr. Cranfill errs in assert- 
ing that all the Beaumont wells have ceased to flow." "The 
Monroe-Carroll well was a gusher September 15 (the Texas Oil 
and Transit Company well has been flowing ever since the day 
"Reverend" Cranfill issued his Circular), and is within 75 feet" 
of San Jacinto wells 1 and 3, and the latter well, brought in 
the latter part of October, has been flowing a gusher for over 
two months." Now, compare this statement with the "Rever- 
end" Cranfill's statement of September 15: "All the Beaumont 
wells ceased to flow the last of July!" 

The Freeze-Out Process. 
Why did the "Reverend" Doctor Cranfill tell the Stockholders 
that "all the wells had ceased to flow?" The Stockholders 
lived at a great distance, and all they could do was to nurse 
their misery. The wells had not ceased to flow. Like all oil 
wells, the gas pressure had diminished, the flow therefore dimin- 
ished, but they had not ceased to flow at all. Some had ceased 
to flow, but the lack of gas was supplied by compressed air. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 165 

Why did not the "Reverend" Cranfill use compressed air? What 
good could come to him from that? He ordered a compress as 
others were using them, but he countermanded the order! Why? 
He had by his own statement contracted with various Rail- 
roads and Manfuacturing companies to deliver them oil at 9, 
10 and 15 cents a barrel. That huge corporation, the Standard 
Oil Company, had touched Beaumont with its wand and oil had 
risen to 20, 30, 40 and finally 50, 60, 70 cents a barrel! The 
diminished yield of the wells was almost compensated by the 
increased price of oil. The "Reverend" Doctor Cranfill, by an- 
nouncing his wells had turned to salt water, could, go on selling 
oil as he did at this enhanced price! But he foresaw that law- 
suits were coming on him. And he stopped paying dividends 
to the Stockholders, which by his own figures, could have beeu 
easil'v avoided. 

Goes Into Receivership. 

But why go into the hands of a receiver? He voluntarily 
helped to put it there. He and his bookkeeper, E. F. Allen, and 
his own attorney, Mr. A. B. Flannery, went to Fort Worth as 
witnesses and helped to put it into the hands of a receiver. 
The Stockholders were literally frozen out. Their stock be- 
came practically valueless. Under such an arrangement, there 
is room for great abuse. The president of a company could, if 
he wanted to, sell not only the 250,000 shares of stock provided 
for in the charter of the Company, but 300,000, 400,000 or any 
other amount and sell as long as the people would buy. He 
could escape by freezing out the Stockholders, buying all the 
stock at a nominal price, and thus get it out of the hands of 
others. This would enable him to destroy the excess of stock 
over the 250,000 shares provided for in the charter! Who could 
know it? One of his friends says, "He heard the 'Reverend' 
Doctor Cranfill propose in a Board meeting to buy all the stock 
of the Company." This was uttered in his defense. Suppose 
a case: You are president of an oil company. Its capital 
stock is $250,000. You have a stock book lithographed with the 



166 THE COMPLETE 

number of shares left blank. You sell 250,000 shares, the limit 
of your charter, much of it at 25 cents a share! You have yet 
left in your stock book as many blanks as you have had printed 
There is still demand for the stock. People regret they have 
not bought larger blocks. So you go on and sell the remaining 
blanks, $250,000. Now you have out $500,000 of stock, par 
value. Some of it you sold for 5 cents, but others you sold for 
25 cents. This is dangerous. But there is a way out of it. 
Freeze out the Stockholders and buy up the stock! Now you 
have all the stock in your own hands— 500,000 shares. It is all 
your property. You surely won't bring suit against yourself! 

A Misapplied Virtue. 
11. We hope the editors of the Advance, Baptist and Re- 
flector and, indeed, all others who may read this, are following 
this narrative scrutinizingly. We believe them to be honest, but 
fearfully blinded to the highest interests of truth in this matter 
For this they are blamable. They take it to be a worthy senti- 
ment to "think no evil," while their innocent readers are being 
fleeced. The virtue they emulate is at the expense of those 
who trust them. They could have known the truth long ago and 
saved their readers unnecessary hardships and actual poverty. 
The disclosures to be made, no doubt, will convince them. 

Why Not Speak Earlier? 
They and others will be ready to ask when and how could 
such a monumental swindle as this occur in this enlightened 
age. The predicate was laid in 1894, when Drs. Burleson, Ander- 
son, Pender and myself reported to the Baptist State Convention 
or the Board of the last six months' work of Secretary Cranfill, 
and that the shortage of that six months was discovered in 
1896 to be about $10,000 as compared with the same periods 
next preceding and succeeding it. These matters have been 
tested thoroughly in the Court House and the truth of these 
statements established. The information came from a few pooi 
women who came to my office or wrote me, telling me how they 
had lost everything and asking my advice. Then came infor- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 167 

mation in a definite form. Mr. W. V. Newlin, Traffic Manager 
of the San Jacinto Oil Company, whose honor scorned the shame- 
ful freezing-out business, and one of the Directors in the San 
Jacinto Oil Refining & Tank Car Company, a man of the high- 
est sense of honor, prominent in business circles, for years 
Traffic Manager for the Fort Worth and Denver Railroad, felt 
himself impelled to uncover this awful swindle and robbery of 
innocent men, women and children. And he made a disclosure 
of everything. Although a Director in the Refining Company, 
he was not permitted even to examine the books of his own 
Company. So after several months of private endeavor, he 
went to the court, which resulted in his free access to the books. 
Himself, his attorney, Mr. Steer, and an expert, Mr. McAleer, 
under the auspices of the Court, made a thorough examination 
of the books with the results given below. As to the high 
standing of Mr. Newlin, let the "Reverend" Doctor Cranfill 
speak. It must be borne in mind that Mr. Newlin was on the 
field at Beaumont, shipping the oil, while the "Reverend" "Doc- 
tor" Cranfill was receiving the money on it. Read Cranfill's 
letters to Mr. Newlin. 

Here are a few: 

Who Is Mr. W. V. Newlin? 

Dallas, Texas, March 1, 1902.— Mr. W. V. Newlin, Beaumont, 
Texas: I congratulate you upon the splendid shipments made 
today. 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 

Dallas, Texas, April 16, 1902.— W. V. Newlin, Beaumont, Tex- 
as: I approve all the suggestions contained in your letters 
and suggest that you go right ahead with them. 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 

Dallas, Texas, April 18, 1902. — W. V. Newlin, Beaumont, Tex- 
as: I am sure you are doing all things in the best possible 
way. 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 



168 THE COMPLETE 

Dallas, Texas, May 22, 1902.— W. V. Newlin, Beaumont, Tex- 
as: I congratulate you upon the splendid manner you are hand- 
ling well No. 2 and indeed all our interests there. 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 

Dallas, Texas, May 24, 1902.— W. V. Newlin, Beaumont, Tex- 
as: I am pleased witth the way you are handling things, etc. 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 

W. V. Newlin, Beaumont, Texas: In bringing suit some ques 
tions might arise as to the legality of our charter. * * * 
Various complications might ensue. 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 

(Here was a hint about the legality of hte charter.) 
Dallas, Texas, June 3, 1902. — Mr. W. V. Newlin, Beaumont, 

Texas: Your work is highly appreciated at this end of the line 

in every way. 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 

Dallas, Texas, June 24, 1902. — Mr. W. V. Newlin, Beaumont, 
Texas: I congratulate you upon last Saturday's business. When 
you are able to load and ship out to various customers twenty 
carloads of oil per day, and deliver $152 worth to local custo- 
mers, etc. I am pleased with the magnificent manner in which 
you are handling matters there. "Hit 'em again." 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 

(That something was brewing, will apear from the follow- 
ing telegram, the next day) : 

Dallas, Texas, June 25, 1902. — W. V. Newlin, Beaumont, Tex- 
as: Await Tom's (T. E. Cranfill, son of J. B.) arrival tomorrow, 
with my letter. I want you to be governed by my advice. 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 

(Mr. Newlin is a man of the highest reputation for honor 
and integrity, and spurns all "advice" involving these high quali- 
ties. As proof of that, let the "Reverend Doctor" Cranfill speak) : 

Dallas, Texas, June 26, 1902. — I love you, and hold you in the 
very highest possible esteem. 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 

(Now look out for squalls.) 
Mr. W. V. Newlin: 

Dallas, Texas, July 2, 1902— I beg to advise you that, until 
further notice, the management of our Beaumont business will 
be in the hands of my son. 

(Signed) J. B. CRANFILL. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 169 

By this time the Board of Directors of the San Jacinto Oil 
Company consisted of the following: J. B. Cranfill, his brother, 
T. E. Crannli, his son, T. E. Cranhll, Jr., his clerk, E. F. Allen, 
and his attorney A. B. Flanary, with one or two others. "Be 
governed by my advice"! Meantime, "Reverend" Cranfill was 
writing to people about the immense fortune in the San Jacinto 
Oil Company: "If the flow was permanent." The Refining 
Company was now on foot and represented by him to be much 
better than the Oil Company! There was so much more profit 
in refined oil! All the Oil Stock had been sold, and people were 
crying that they did not buy before it was too late! But the 
"Refining Stock was 500 per cent" while the Oil Stock was "only 
100 per cent" profit!! "Our friends who bought the Oil Stock 
must be favored with Refinery Stock at THE GROUND-FLOOR 
price!" The Refinery Stock was now pushed to the front. Let 
us stop here to explain. The Refinery charter called for 5,000,000 
shares at 10 cents, $500,000! Of this 5,000,000 shares, the "Rev. 
erend" Cranfill and other promoters took 250,000 shares at 2 
cents a share! (Remember, all his letters to "favorites" were 
on "the ground-floor price of 5 cents a share!" As long as it 
is you, we will put it at the price of 5 cents. More of this 
later.) What next? 

12. As the Promoters had got their stock at 2 cents a 
share, the "Reverend" Cranfill wrote some of them substantially 
as follows: I can sell for you your Promoters' Stock at 3 
cents a share. Shall I sell? J. B. CRANFILL. 

Some of them wrote: Yes; sell if you can get 3 cents. 

What did he do? He was President at a salary of $3,000. 
He took the stock himself at 3 cents, sold it for 5 cents to per- 
sons who were answering the advertisements and letters he 
sent out as President of the Company, put 3 cents in his pocket 
and turned in 2 cents into the Company! ("The management 
will be honest.") ("No freezing-out.") 

Intimidation Attempted. 

13. Mr. Newlin, in behalf of the Stockholders, undertook to 



170 THE COMPLETE 

stop the spoliation of the two Companies. This brought on a 
violent conflict. The Board of Directors met in May. Mr. New- 
lin was one of them. When the Directory met, Mr. Newlin 
stated that things were not going right! J. B. Cranfill leaped 
from his chair in which he was presiding, and made toward 
Mr. Newlin, declaring "he would not be insulted." Mr. Newlin, 
who is a small man, seems to have treated this stage-acting with 
immimmovable contempt; so T. E. Cranfill his son, T. E. Cranfill, 
his brother, and one or two others, rushed in and held President 
J. B. Cranfill off Director W. V. Newlin! 

To the next proposition, Mr. Newlin repeated his objection, 
whereupon J. B. Cranfill's son, Tom, made at Director Newlin 
after the manner of Robert Winkelreid against the Austrian pha 
lanx. T. E. Cranfill, brother of J. B., joined in this charge! Di- 
rector Newlin again treated this stage play with impassable con- 
tempt. Some of the Directors caught the two Cranfills, and they 
finally subsided. Epithets too bad to mention here were ireely 
bandied by the Cranfills. Mr. Newlin understood the stage play 
thoroughly. He was under legal advice. He was prying into 
the books with the Court behind him, and under the advice of 
his attorneys. 

After a week or two of investigation, an expert of the highest 
reputation and integrity, universally so acknowledged in Dallas 
by the Courts and community, made a report, from which is ex- 
tracted the following: 

Report of J. A. McAleer, Expert Accountant. 

Mr. W. V. Newlin, Fort Worth, Texas: 

Dear Sir — Having at your request examined the books of ac- 
count, stock register and ledgers, and certificate books of the 
San Jacinto Oil Refining & Tank Car Company, of which J. B 
Cranfill is President, and E. F. Allen is Secretary, at the office 
of said company in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, 1 beg to submit 
the following report: 

I find from the by-laws of the company that the capital stock 
was five hundred thousand ($500,000) dollars, representing 5,000,- 
000 shares of the par value of ten (10c) cents each. This stock, 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 171 

I understand, was divided into 2,500,000 shares of promoters' 
stock and 2,500,000 shares of Treasury stock. The promoters' 
stock was to be sold by the company to the promoters at two 
(2c) cents per share, and the Treasury stock was to be sold in 
open market at the best price obtainable. The books of account 
show that the Treasury stock sold at five centa and seven and a 
half cents per share, and from such sales of both promoters' and 
Treasury stock the sum of $200,098.80 was placed to the credit 
of capital account. The regular books of account, however, fail 
to show how much of this amount was derived from sales of pro- 
moters' stock, and how much from sales of treasury stock. There 
is, however, a notation on the stock register showing the distri 
bution of sales as follows: 

Promoters' stock, at 2c 2,500,000 shares 

Treasury Stock 918,717 shares 

In the matter of sales of treasury stock, I find that from 
July 1st to July 31st, 1902, certificates of stock beginning with 
No. 2,301 and ending with No. 2,783, were sold at from five to 
seven and a half cents per share, aggregating $24,301.60, which 
various items were duly entered on the company's cash book 
and also in the stock register and stock ledger as original sales 
for account of the company. On page 43 of the cash book con- 
taining the above entries there is written the following: 

"Errors. Charged to account of J. B. Cranfill — Transfers and 
should not have been entered here — (Cert. 2,301 and 2,783, in- 
clusive.)" 

The items stated are not posted to the capital stock account 
in the company's ledger, but of the $24,301.60 in sales referred 
to, I find on page 53 of the cash book, that $10,250.00 has been 
re-entered, thus showing $14,051.60 proceeds of company's stock 
sold, as appropriated by J. B. Cranfill on the mere statement that 
the said stock belonged to him. . . . There is nothing to sup 
port the arbitrary appropriation of the $14,051.60 derived from 
sales of stock which undoubtedly belonged to the company, as a 
scrutiny of the record books reveals the fact that at the time 
said sales of stock were made and claimed to be for the account 
of J, B. Cranfill, he was not the record owner of any stock. On 
the contrary, the books show that from various dates, from 
June 19th to July 31, 1902, sales of stock made for account of 
J. B. Cranfill largely exceeded the number of shares held by him 
at said dates, including a great number of shares belonging to 
other promoters which he controlled or assumed to control. 



172 THE COMPLETE 

It is thus conclusively proven that the $14,051.60 taken from 
the company's account on the pretense that it belonged to J. B. 
Cranfill's account for stock sold by him, was in fact the mone^ 
of the company derived from sales of its Treasury stock. 

The records further show that sales of promoters', stock were 
made indiscriminately in different parts of the country, indi- 
cating that such sales were made on orders for Treasury stock, 
and would have gone to the credit of the company, had not an 
undue preference been given to promoters' stock. 

In relation to this matter, it may be stated that the Secretary 
stated he could not produce the orders on which stock was sold. 
Did not know where they were, notwithstanding it was the Secre- 
tary himself who issued the certificates on said orders. 

The books show that less than a million shares of Treasury 
stock were actually sold for the benefit of the company, while 
J. B. Cranfill sold for his own account 1,961,192 shares up to 
October 24, 1902. If, instead of selling stock for his own benefit. 
J. B. Cranfill had disposed of the remaining one and a half mil- 
lion of Treasury stock at the lowest price for which it was sold. 
5 cents per share, the result would have been $125,000 to the 
credit of the company, to which the sale of two and one-half mil- 
lion of promoters' stock, at 2 cents per share, would have added 
$50,000, making a total of $175,000; but, with the prices obtained 
for stock, commencing with the month of June, 1902, when the 
prevailing price was 7V 2 cents per share, it may safely be as- 
sumed that one million of the treasury stock would have sold at 
the latter price, and the net result would have been not less than 
$200,000 in the company's treasury. 

Besides the sale of other promoters' stock before it was ac- 
quired, it is distinctly in evidence on the records that Treasury 
stock was regularly sold for account of J. B. Cranfill when pro- 
moters' stock was not available. Also from and after July 1, 
1902, practically all sales of Treasury stock were credited to J. B. 
Cranfill's account, when, as previously stated, he in fact did not 
own any stock, and merely relied on obtaining the holdings of 
some other promoters. 

(Signed) J. A. McALBER, Accountant. 

Dallas, Texas, May 1, 1903. 

With the "Reverend" Cranfill's books, for the first time in 
the history of the company, uncovered and these startling dis- 
closures forced by the Court, Mr. Newlin institutes his suit: 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 173 

Pleadings of W. V. Newlin Against J. B. Cranfill, in Behalf of 
Himself and All Stockholders. 

The State of Texas: 

Dallas County'. 

In the Fourteenth District Court of Said County — To the Hon- 
orable Judge of said Court: Conies now W. V. Newlin, plaintiff, 
by attorney, and shows to the Court . . . 

On or about the 1st day of May, 1902, the defendant Cranfill, 
and R. L. Spann, and C. M. Rork, subscribed and caused to be 
filed with the Secretary of State the original charter of the above 
mentioned corporation, the purpose of said corporation ,as stated 
in said charter, being as follows: 

"For the transaction of a general manufacturing business, and 
the purchase and sale of such goods, wares and merchandise used 
for said business." 

The amount of the capital stock of the corporation was named 
as five hundred thousand ($500,000) dollars, divided in five mil- 
lion shares of ten cents each. . . . 

Defendant Cranfill, who w.as its chief promoter and organizer, 
claimed that George W: Carroll had subscribed for 125,000 shares 
of said stock, F. I. Hawks for 125,000, F. S. Davis for 125,000, T. 
E. Cranfill for 125,000, Charles Lee Smith for 250,000, J. T. Har- 
rington for 125,000, T. B. Cranfill, Jr., for 250,000, and said J. B, 
Cranfill himself for 250,000, W. V. Newlin 250,000 shares, and C- 
M. Rork, R. L. Spann, D. H. Spencer, T. C. Yantis, Lee Watson 
and Joshua Levering subscribed in the aggregate for 750,000 
shares of said capital stock. 

On the organization of said company it was agreed by the 
stockholders and directors . . . that the original subscribers to 
said stock, who subscribed for said one-half of the capital stock 
of the corporation, should have the same issued to them upon 
the payment by them respectively of two cents. . . . The de- 
fendant Cranfill was authorized to sell the two million and a half 
shares of Treasury stock for and in behalf of the corporation. . . 
He was to receive, or did receive, a salary of $3,000 per year. . . 

Defendant Cranfill did not act in good faith with said corpo- 
ration, but was guilt yof many breaches of trust, wrongs and 
injuries, to the great injury and damage of said coloration and 
all of its stockholders, in this: That during the month of July. 
1902, he made sale of the Treasury stock belonging to said cor- 
poration at prices ranging from five to seven and a half cents per 
share, the proceeds of said sale during said month amounting 



174 THE COMPLETE 

to the sum of $24,301.60, which he did not pay into the treasury 
of the company, but appropriated to his own use and benefit, ex- 
cept that thereafter he caused to be entered upon the books of 
said corporation against himself $10,250.00 of said amount, leav- 
ing a balance of $14,051.60 of the proceeds of the sales of stock 
of said corporation appropriated by him, and at divers dates from 
May 17, 1902, to May 1, 1903, said Cranfill, while acting as Man- 
ager, President, Agent and Trustee, as aforesaid, sold more than 
two and a half million shares of the capital stock of said corpo- 
ration at prices ranging from five cents to seven and a half 
cents per share, the proceeds of which should have been paid 
into the treasury of the corporation, many of said sales having 
been made at seven and one-half cents per share, and said cor- 
poration was entitled to have paid to it, as such proceeds not 
less than $200,000, but said Cranfill in fact paid into said corpo- 
ration from the sales of said stock less than $100,000, leaving a 
balance of, to-wit, about $100,000, which in equityand good con- 
science belongs to and ought to be paid into the treasury of the 
corporation. . . . 

During the year 1902, the defendant Cranfill loaned and ad- 
vanced to . . . the San Jacinto Oil Company the sum of $43,- 
543.92. . . . Said San Jacinto Oil Company has become insol- 
vent, and is in the hands of a receiver appointed with the con 
sent of Defendant Cranfill. ... 

Said Cranfill either made said loans and advances on his own 
accord and without the authority of the board of directors, or if 
he had such authority, he caused said board of directors to give 
same to him without authority of law, and in so doing, said 
board of directors did not act for the good of said corporation 
but acted as tools and agents of said Cranfill to further his own 
ends. . . . 

Plaintiff prosecutes this suit in behalf of said corporation and 
ol all of the stockholders therein, who have heretofore or may 
aereafter elect to take advantage of the same, and alleges that 
it is necessary for the protection of the interests of said corpo- 
ration and said stockholders that he should be permitted to so 
prosecute this suit, for the reason that said corporation is alto- 
gether, controlled and dominated by said defendant Cranfill, who 
named each and all of the directors of . said corporation and 
caused all of them to be elected, said directors, in addition to 
himself. . . . 

Plaintiff shows that it would be useless to expect or request 
said directors to prosecute a suit against said Cranfill for and 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 175 

on behalf of the corporation or its stockholders, for the reason 
that plaintiff charges that no such suit instituted or carried on 
by said directors in behalf of the corporation, would be prose- 
cuted with good faith, on account of said Cranfill dominating and 
controlling the majority of said Board of Directors, and for the 
reasons that the regularly employed and retained attorney of 
said corporation, who advises with reference to all of its legal 
affairs, is also the attorney for said Cranfill individually, and 
he and all of said directors owe their position to his influence 
and domination. . . . 

Plaintiff further avers that said Cranfill, having disposed of 
the capital stock of said corporation, as above set out, used the 
proceeds thereof to purchase the real estate hereinafter described 
and to pay liens on real estate theretofore purchased by him on 
credit, and by reason of said facts, and by reason of the invest- 
ment in said real estate of the funds of said corporation, said 
corporation is entitled to have a lien declared in its favor upon 
all the real estate so purchased by said Cranfill. . . . 

Plaintiff further avers that he is informed and believes that 
at a stockholders' meeting held on May 5, 1903, the directors were 
authorized to amend the charter of said San Jacinto Oil Refining 
& Tank Car Company to the Navarro Refining Company. . . . 

Plaintiff prays that on the hearing hereof, judgment be en- 
tered in his favor for and in behalf of said corporation and the 
stockholders thereof against the Defendant Cranfill for one hun- 
dred thousand dollars, the proceeds of the stock of said corpora- 
tion sold by him and not accounted for, and for the further sum 
of fifteen thousand dollars, money and property of said corpora- 
tion illegally loaned and advanced to the San Jacinto Oil Com- 
pany, and that a lien be declared on all of the described real 
estate to secure the payment of said judgment. . . . 

Sworn to and subscribed by W. V. Newlin before me on the 
20th day of May, A. D. 1903. (Signed) J. E. COCKRELL, 

Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas. 

Mr. Newlin, referring to this suit, says: 

"There is a feature connected with the looting of this com- 
pany, and the wrecking of the San Jacinto Oil Company, which 
should appeal with overwhelming force to every stockholder, and 
to every honest man and woman. This appeal, imperative as a 
command, comes from innocent women, children and orphans, 
who have been the victims of misplaced confidence, wherein the 
sanctity of religion has been abused to beguile and decoy them 



176 



THE COMPLETE 



to contribute their 'little savings,' their 'rainy day' hoardings for 
the emergencies of old age and sickness to this corruption fund. 
"Many of the circulars and letters sent out as advertising me 
diums of both the Refining Company and the San Jacinto Oil 
Company, were as deliberately untrue in many vital particulars 
as language could make them. This applied with equal force to 
those which lured the victims in, as well as to those which after- 
wards stabbed them. 

"Of the first or 'luring in' circulars and letters you require 
no reference, but as an illustration of the latter species, I refer 
to the circular dated September 15, 1902, wherein the stockhold- 
ers of the Oil Company were told, viz.: 'Since our last letter was 
sent you, all the Beaumont wells have ceased to flow. They 
ceased to flow the last of July.' 

"I quote from the Oil Investors' Journal, Beaumont, October 
1, 1902, commenting on this statement, viz.: 'Dr. Cranfill errs in 
asserting that "all the Beaumont wells have ceased to flow." . . 
Then there is the Monroe Carroll well, in the Yellow Pine tract, 
which is described by all who have witnessed its performance, as 
being a regulation gusher.' 

"At the very hour, September 15, 1902, that Dr. Cranfill made 
the statement that 'all the Beaumont wells have ceased to flow— 
they ceased flowing the last of July,' the Monroe Carroll well, 
within 75 feet of the San Jacinto wells, in the Yellow Pine tract, 
was a regulation gusher, flowing admittedly from 4,000 to 5,000 
barrels of oil a day, and San Jacinto Oil Company well No. 3 was 
a gaser, and ready to come in a gusher, and did come in a regu 
lation gusher shortly afterwards!!!" 

To end this matter, Mr. Newlin got judgment against Defend 
ant Cranfill, and Cranfill paid the judgment without appeal, show 
ing he felt no hope of reversal. 

The "Reverend" CranfilPs Prescience. 

14. When J. B. Cranfill et al. were involved in a verdict in 
the last Conspiracy Trial Case, it devolved upon him to give an 
appeal bond. He went to the representative, in Dallas, of a se- 
curity company in New York, and made the statement that "he 
was worth more than $100,000 over and above all liabilities." And 
he gave an inventory of his property, not including his magnifi- 
cent residence, which he himself valued at $20,000. That the 






CONSPIRACY TRIAL 177 

"Reverend" Crannll got his $100,000 out of the San Jacinto Oil 
Companies, is practically confessed by himself, in that he ren 
dered his property, in 1891, as follows: 

Real estate (homestead) $3,000 

Miscellaneous 800 

Total $3,800 

That was before he began the San Jacinto Oil Company. 

In 1902 he swore his tax-list on real estate, before he owned 
his $20,000 mansion, at $35,000. 

At the close of 1902 he inventoried his personal property to 
his bondsmen at, "over and above all liabilities, over $100,000." 

How The Stockholders Feel. 

15. If any of the good brethren doubt the truth of all these 
statements (and they are incredible on their face), let them con- 
sult the following well-known brethren: 

Pisgah, Mo., July 2, 1903. — I have bought stock in both com- 
panies. I bought 4,000 shares at 5c a share from J. B. Crannll, 
supposing I was buying company stock. — W. G. Carpenter. 

I get a salary of only $400. ... I paid 25 cents a share for 
it. I only went into it on the reputation of the president. — Chas. 
D. Parker, York, Penna. 

Little Falls, N. Y., Jfune 24, 1902. — A man who will deliber- 
ately buy treasury stock at 2c and sell it to the general public 
at iy 2 c to 25c, and put the balance in his own pocket, as presi 
dent of any concern, is a , etc. — Edwin L. Warren. 

How He Worked It. 

To Dr. A. Fowler, of Union City, Tenn., the "Reverend" Cran- 
nll, under date August 2, 1902, writes: "Our Refining and Tank 
Car Company, have purchased and paid for thirty-five cars as 
a beginning of our car line. These have cost us $35,000, and we 
have in the bank a sufficient amount of money to erect the Re- 
finery plant. We are not absolutely decided as yet, as to whether 
we will build the plant here or at Corsicana. We have secured 
a competent refining man from the East, and he says we can 
begin refining by the 1st of January." — J. B. Crannll. 



178 THE COMPLfilE 

To a poor young woman in Mississippi, who was alarmed, 
under date April 11, 1902, he writes: "I do not know what has 
led you to change your decision concerning an investment in our 
stock. When our stock was selling at 5c a share, a gentleman 
came in my office with N. Y. exchange to buy $1,000 worth, bui 
he consulted a lawyer about the matter, and the lawyer scared 
him out of it. He could have made some $4,000 upon this in- 
vestment during this period; as it is, he made nothing. Our 
company will declare a dividend this month of not less than 5 
per cent, and if you had held your investment, you would have 
participated in this dividend. I believe your stock would have 
been double its present value within twelve months from this 
time"— J. B. Cranfill. 

She bit, and on April 17, 1902, he wrote her again. 

To a poor young woman in Mississippi, the "Reverend" Doc- 
tor writes: "Beyond a doubt we will declare quarterly dividends 
this year. I have been trying myself to buy additional stock, 
and I find that very little is for sale, either by our company or 
elsewhere. We are planning to pay large dividends within the 
next year, which I think will not be less than 40 per cent, and 
may be even more. I can still sell you the stock. It is selling 
quite rapidly, and I suggest that, if you decide to take the stock, 
you make your order by return mail." — J. B. Cranfill. 

The same young lady in Mississippi writes: "I saw his adver- 
tisement in the State denominational paper, 'The Baptist,' in 
which he had the picture of a gusher, and represented the well 
as being a sure investment, and later on recommending the Re- 
fining and Tank Car Company a better investment still. I got 
the stock when it was quoted at 25c per share by Cranfill, and 
sent him the money for it. I was gulled in this too easily. After 
receiving $10 dividend, I invested further in the Refining and 
Tank Car Company. I have long since been convinced that J. B. 
Cranfill is not to be relied upon, and endeavored to get a lawyer 
to take the case. I invested all in the two companies, entirely 
upon my faith in the character of Cranfill." 

Now she says: "I paid 5c per share for my stock in the Re- 
fining and Tank Car Company. I did not suspect him." 

(Signed) " " 

Rev. H. T. Crane, pastor First Baptist Church, Cincinnati, 
Ohio, says: "My stock was purchased through J. B. Cranfill's ad- 
vertisements, circulars and personal letters: Oil Company at 10c, 
Refining Company at 5c." — H. T. Crane. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 179 

Rev. Walter P. Stradley, of Oxford, N. C, holds certificate 
No. 695 for 3,000 shares of stock of San Jacinto Oil Refining and 
Tank Car Company, for which he paid $150; 5c per share. 

"I own 10,000 shares bought at 5c per share, checks direct 
to J. B. Cranfill, part in response to ad in religious papers, and 
balance in response to special circulars of Oil Company stock." — 
S. P. Bainbridge, Pittsburg, Pa. 

Dr. Z. T. Cody, the popular pastor at Greenville, S. C, bought 
heavily. He regards himself as mulcted of about all the ready 
cash he could raise. He was led to it by the "Reverend Doctor" 
Cranfill's statement that Joshua Levering of Baltimore was a 
"Director," which soft impeachment Mr. Levering denies. 

Dr. J. B. Hutson, of Richmond, Va., President of our Foreign 
Mission Board, was well night financially ruined by this "organ- 
ized work" of the "Reverend" Cranfill. He was induced to invest 
in both companies by the advertisements. He wrote the "Rev- 
erend" Cranfill as president of the respective companies, and 
bought stock as follows 4,000 shares San Jacinto Oil Company, 
Certificate No. 5815, dated April 5, 1902, at 25c per share, $1,000; 
20,000 shares San Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank Car Company, 
Certificate No. 2781, dated August 4. 1902, at 5c per share, $1,000 
All this stock was bought on borrowed money, on which Dr. 
Hutson is paying interest, while struggling from time to time 
to make small payments on the principal. 

While working on the faithful President of our Foreign Mis- 
sion Board, the "Reverend" Cranfill wrote an article regretting 
that he had not gone to the foreign field as a missionary, and 
managed also about this time to sell to Brother W. F. Seymour, 
one of our missionaries in China, a small block. I congratulate 
Brethren Hutson, Seymour, the Empress Dowager, Li Hung 
Chang and the Chinese Empire generally that the "Reverend" 
J. B. Cranfill did not obey the impulse he felt to go to the "For 
eign Field." The Hon:e Field is enough for such a call. 

Rev. W. J. Pasko, pastor at Scotia, N. Y., says: "I read very 
glowing accounts in regard to the San Jacinto Oil Refining and 
Tank Car Company. The article was by Rev. J. B. Cranfill, and 
as his name was familiar in our denominational papers and his 
statements were plausible, I placed very mach confidence in 
what was printed over his name. I felt that I ought to purchase 
shares, and also help my friends to a magnificent opportunity. I 
wrote, asking what commission they would allow me. . . . I am 
pastor of a thriving Baptist Church in this town, and - felt that 
my general reputation would help along the sales. ..... We 



180 THE COMPLETE 

were assured that this was located in the most desirable dis- 
trict in Texas, and were led to believe that it was a 'sure thing' 
and no chance to lose, unless every well in the district went 
dry. The fact that J. B. Cranfill took 250,000 shares, and others 
in the office took large blocks, inspired confidence to suggest to 
my friends that they need not fear to take a few hundred shares. 
Under the date of June 16, 1902, J. B. Cranfill as President wrote, 
'I will be glad to have you represent us in the sale of stock in 
your vicinity. We will allow you 10 per cent on all orders you 
take, payable in the stock of the company. The price of this 
stock is now 7%c per share. The facts . . .. are set forth . . . 
in the advertisements which you read. Hoping you may do a 
nice business for you and us, we are, yours truly, J. B. Cran- 
fill.' " ... 

Then Rev. Pasko gives a list of the trustful women who sent 
their orders for stock. 

"Under date of June 23, 1902, they wrote me, 'As it will not 
be long before the stock is again advanced to 10c, we suggest 
you put in some strong efforts to secure orders. Our company 
is a solid one in every respect, and we offer what we are confi- 
dent will prove a magnificent investment. Yours truly, San Ja- 
cinto Oil Co.' Under date of August 22, 1902, I received another 
communication, viz.: 'Answering yours of the 19th, we have not 
yet issued any prospectus for the reason we have sold about all 
the stock we care to sell until the refinery plant is built and in 
operation. We have sold of the five million shares, about three 
and a half million. . . San Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank Car 
Company.' You may know my position and the embarrassment 
I feel in having these stocholders in this vicinity asking, 'What 
is the matter with the company that you got us into?' I acted 
in good faith, and evidently there has been some decidedly 
crooked work," etc. "W. J. PASCO, 

"Pastor Scotia Baptist Church." 
Rev. J. J. Lansdell of Durham, N. C, holds in the San Ja- 
cinto Oil Refining and Tank Car Company as follows: Certifi- 
cate of Stock No. 1483, dated June 19, 1902, 500 shares ; Certifi- 
cate of Stock No. 2629, dated July 12, 1902, 800 shares. He paid 
5c a share on both certificates, aggregating $65. He also has 
two certificates of stock in Oil Wells, one 50 shares, for which 
he paid 20c a share, and one for 40 shares, which he paid 25c 
a share for, aggregating $20. Rev. Lansdell says: 

"This business of promoters taking three out of five for pro- 
moter's fee is something new to me. I would think a salary -of 



CONSPFRAOY TRIAL 181 

$3,000 quite enough to pay a man for promoting. It looks to me 
like a bare-faced swindle. The common stock ought to have the 
full benefit of every dollar paid by the stockholders. 

"J. J. LANSDELL." 
Elder J. M. Harry, of Westerly, R. I., a venerable Seventh 
Day Baptist, sent all he had. He says: "May 31, 1902, I received 
certificate of 2,000 shares in San Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank 
Car Company, paying 5c per share. Also, October 15, I received 
certificates for 28,000 shares, paying iy 2 c per share. In all, 30,- 

000 shares, paying therefor $2,200. I certainly understood and 
supposed that the money I paid was going into the treasury of 
said company, to erect the plant. Moreover, from the advertise 
ments, circulars and letters sent to me by J. B. Cranfill, I sup- 
posed and understood that 5c per share was the 'ground floor 
price' for all investors. Never dreamed there was such a thing 
as promoters' stock at 2c, or anything less than 5c. If I had 
known this, I certainly would not have invested." 

"I was a small investor in the San Jacinto Oil Company, 
$52.50, at 5c. . . . Since making this discovery I wrote twice 
to Dr. Cranfill, asking him to explain this discrepancy, but no 
reply. I was led into these investments seeing that Dr. Cranfill 
was President, whom I knew by reputation. I had great confi- 
dence in the matter. I am greatly disappointed and distressec!. 

1 invested all I had, except about $500, and, of course, a poor 
minister eking out an existence on a very small salary, about 
$400 per year and less. Am 58 years old, poor and failing health. 
Am deceived and distressed by two facts: (1) Supposing I was 
getting on basis of 5c as 'ground floor price;' (2) Supposing all 
stock sold by the company was for the benefit of the company. 
Instead thereof, it appears most stock sold was promoters' stock. 
Why did soliciting circulars and announcements of the Refining 
Company, sent to me and others, tell us that 5c was the lowest 
price, and this only to stockholders of the San Jacinto Oil Com- 
pany? "(REV.) J. M. HARRY." 

Our German Baptist brethren suffered severely. They could 
not suspect the "'spirit-guided" capable of such things. 

Rev. J. C. Grimmell, Cleveland, O., editor of the German Bap- 
tist paper, Der Sendbote (and three other German papers) bought 
stock from J. B. Cranfill, President, and thought every cent oi 
the money was going into the treasury of the company: 

"I own 2,700 shares, No. 37, No. 744 and No. 1157, dated May 
17 ; June 3, and June 16, respectively. For this stock I paid 5c. 
My father owns 4,000 or 5,000 shares. "J. C. GRIMMELL." 



182 THE COMPLETE 

Rev. C. W. Brinstad, secretary of the Nebraska Baptist State 
Convention, Omaha, says: 

"Words fail to express my surprise at the outcome of this 
business. I, with hundreds of others, believed implicitly in the 
integrity of J. B. Cranfill. My investment in the company neces- 
sitates my borrowing some money. "C. W. BRINSTAD." 

He bought 7,000 shares. 

Another: 

"I own 400 shares of the San Jacinto Oil Company, and was 
solicited by J. B. Cranfill to buy stock in the San Jacinto Oil 
Refining and Tank Car Company, by letter, and believing it a 
good investment at price offered, 5c per share, as at that time 
the San Jacinto Oil Company had declared a dividend payable 
in July, 1902. T. A. Honiss (who has since died) bought 2,000 
shares, and my wife bought 1,000 shares, and I bought 2,000 
shares and sent check for $250 on June 17, 1902, for payment for 
the same to J. B. Cranfill. My wife had about $100, and she 
put in half she had. "EDWIN TOLHURST, Hartford, Conn." 

From another Baptist, at Cleveland, Ohio: 

"Although in my dealings with Dr. Cranfill there were some 
things which appeared to be a little irregular, yet I never dreamed 
that he would have done the things you charge him with. My 
attention was called to the San Jacinto Oil Company by Dr. Cran- 
fill's letters. ... Dr. Cranfill stated in those letters that he 
believed by April, 1902, the stock would be selling at 50c a share. 
I then wrote to Cranfill for information; asked him what the 
stock was selling for, its par value, etc. I received a reply from 
him, praising the stock very highly, saying stock was selling at 
20c per share, but did not say what the par value was. I hadn't 
much money to invest, but I bought 250 shares at 20c. I fully 
expected the stock was par at $1. Imagine my surprise when my 
certificate came, and I found it was only par at 10c! The next 
thing that looked peculiar to me was that some time in June, 
1902, I received a letter from Dr. Cranfill, stating that a dividend 
of 5 per cent had been declared, payable July 1. Well, it got to 
be about the third week in July; I had not heard nor seen any- 
thing of my dividend. I then wrote to Dr. Cranfill, asking the 
reason I had not received my dividend, and then, with some lame 
excuse, he forwarded my dividend, and I was informed that I 
might look for dividends every three months or oftener. I did not 
receive his circular letter of September 15, and did not hear from 
the company till, in January, 1903, I wondered what had happened, 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 183 

that promoters' shares were being directly or indirectly unloaded, 
fining and Tank Car Company stock at 5c per share, $500; and 
August 4, 1902, 2,500 shares at 7%c. Total, 18,500 shares for 
$687.50. "S. H. HILLMAN." 

A poor woman writes: 

"Frankford, Kansas, July 6, 1903. 
"I hold Certificate No. 6,300, calling for 400 shares of stock 
in the San Jacinto Oil Co., signed by J. B. Cranfill. Bought stock 
of said Cranfill the 29th day of April, 1902, for which I paid 25c 
per share. I also hold Certificate for 2,000 shares in the San 
Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank Car Company, signed by J. B. 
Cranfill, for which I paid 5c per share. Such gross injustice 
and extortion practiced upon innocent people should be brought 
to speedy justice, and thank God there is one who is willing 
to uncover and expose such treachery and stand fearlessly 
and manfully for justice and right, not only for himself, but 
others." "MRS. ." 

"Kewanee, 111., July 4, 1903. 
"My words in private and public are always for righteous- 
ness, justice and truth. I feel the loss more for others than 
for myself. While $500 in loss means much to me, it means 
far more to others. I am a young man with many productive 
years before me, but what about the man of seventy, and the 
poor widow who put her all into the San Jacinto stock? Again, 
what about the non-Christian losers in this swindle, who trusted 
the honor and honesty of the company, because of its Christian 
and ministerial personnel? All ministers should seek to let in 
the light and to uncover Dr. Cranfill' s sins. He should be un- 
covered of his ministerial cloak and deposed from the ministry, 
and his paper refused in every home where justice is loved and 
purity practiced. I wrote to Dr. Cranfill about it months ago, and 
the receiver, but no reply came from the latter, nor nave we 
up here ever heard from him. Dr. Cranfill sent me in reply a 
circular which told little. "(REV.) JOHN V. WHITING." 

New Castle, Pa., June 27, 1903. 
"I own 4,000 shares of the capital stock of the San Jacinto 
Oil Refining and Tank Car Company, for which I paid 5c pet 
share. I was induced to take this investment solely on what I 
had heard of the personal standing of J. B. Cranfill, and on the 
ready access of Mr. Cranfill to the religious papers of high char- 
acter. My understanding was that the shares that were offered 
was the treasury stock of the company. If I had had one thought 



184 THE COMPLETE 

Another good woman says that she bought 400 shares of 
stock in the San Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank Car Company. 
"The advertisement bore the signature of J. B. Cranfill, a man in 
whom my mother had the greatest confidence, and whose influ- 
ence alone induced her to make the investment. 

"MRS. ." 

Grove City, Minn., June 25, 1903. 

"I was induced by Mr. J. B. Crannll to buy stock in the San 
Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank Car Company because I was told 
by Mr. Cranfill that at 5c a share I was getting in on the ground 
floor. I took our last money and invested; if I had known that 
there were others who were to have the stock at 2c a share, I 
would not have bought one share. "NED EKBORN." 

"Evanston, 111., July 7, 190*3. 

"I am a minister, and put $500 into this company, thinking 
it would help provide for my old age. I made the investment on 
reading the overdrawn printed matter sent cut by J. B. Cranfill. 
I hold two certificates, No. 1015 and 2186, for 500 each. I am 
now laid aside by sickness and much need the interest on the 
money. I think that Mr. Cranfill should be made to suffer for 
his deception and fraud. In CrannH's last circular he stated 
operations would soon commence. "H. W. TATE." 

"Saxton, Bedford County, Pa. 

"I am a poor man; it is more than I can afford to lose. 

"L. C. BAILEY." 

One man in Kentucky writes: 

"On June 20, 1892, I sent check for $25, and received 500 
shares, Certificate No. 1866, and on June 25, 1902, I sent check 
for $1,041.70, and received shares as follows: Certificate No. 
2307, 10,000 shares; Certificate No. 2308, 10,000 shares; Certifi- 
cate No. 2309, 5,500 shares; Certificate No. 334 shares. I thought 
I was buying from the San Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank Car 
Company, instead of any individual. I wrote him as President 
concerning stock in the company, just a few days before June 
20, 1902, wanting a little time so I could make arrangements for 
a large amount of stock. All my checks, etc., were addressed 
to J. B. Cranfill,' President, and he endorsed them, when cashing 
them, viz., J. B. Cranfill, President. "MRS. ." 

He used the title President. 

"Owatonna, Minn., July 6, 1903. 

"I bought directly of J. B. Cranfill, sending draft with appli- 
cation to him, May 17, 1902, 10,000 shares San Jacinto Oil Re- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 185 

his influence and strong solicitation that induced me to purchase 
stock. I thought it was a good investment." 

W. L. Meroney of Comanche, Texas, bought 6,000 shares Re- 
fining Stock. He sent $300 and paid 5c a share. He owns 6,000 
shares in the San Jacinto Oil Company, bought about June, 1901. 
He says he was lead to buy these shares from J. B. Cranfill's 
statements in the Baptist Standard. "I am an old man," he 
says, "in my seventieth year, poor in this world's goods. I in- 
vested all the spare money in these two companies in order to 
help me to live in my old age. 'Let justice be done though the 
heavens fall.' "W. L. MORONEY." 

The Methodists Caught. 

The Methodists did not all escape. Mr. J. M. Richards, man- 
ager of the Epworth Chautauqua Assembly, Bethesda, Ohio, 
writes : 

"The man who has so outrageously abused the confidence of 
those who had faith in him because he was an active Prohibi- 
tionist, prominent in its national proceedings, and a preacher. 1 
have 1,000 shares for which I paid all the hard-earned money I 
could spare, hoping from the positive assurance Cranfill gave me, 
that I would surely have a little added to it for my old age. I 
am too old to earn any more. "J. M. RICHARDS." 

The Campbellites Dipped in, Too. 

The Campbellites bit, too. Rev! W. B. Young, of Fayette- 
ville, Ark., says: 

"His advertisements were so alluring and assuring that I 
sent, in May, 1902, $50 for 1,000 shares, and in June, 1902, $20 
for 400 shares. I hoped to lay-by for my little home here (Fay 
etteville) at least twice that amount by investing in the stock. 
I now need the money to complete our little home of three rooms. 
I was preaching for the Christian Church at Bentonville, Ark. 
I closed there in January, 1903, and moved here, to our unfin- 
ished cottage on our little farm. "W. B. YOUNG." 

Another good woman writes: 

"I paid 5c a share for 2,000 shares of San Jacinto Oil and 
5,000 shares of San Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank Car Company. 
But that I lose through a clergyman whose profession inspired 
investors with confidence, is a most disgraceful state of affairs, 
and I hope the 'wolf in sheep's clothing' may be punished as he 
deserves. "MRS. ." 



186 THE COMPLETE 

"I am the holder of Certificate No. 2341 for 2,000 shares of 
stock of the San Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank Car Company, 
for which I paid 5c per share. I bought the same from Mr. J. B. 
Cranfill. ... G. W. Carpenter of Marshall, Minn., owns 3,000 
shares of the same stock, which he got at 5c per share. My 
father bought and recommended the stock largely because of 
Mr. Cranfill's standing as a Baptist minister and a Christian man 
Father, brothers and myself own 8,000 shares all together; the 
most of it was bought at 5c, but I think 7^c was paid for it. I 
borrowed money to pay for mine. ... It is a shame the way 
this man Cranfill has handled the funds entrusted to him. 

"E. D. CARPENTER." 

His letters, "smooth as split silk dipped in vaseline," speak 
for themselves. Here is one: 

"Dallas, Texas, January 10, 1903. 
"Dr. A. Fowler, Union City, Tenn.: 

Dear Sir — Answering yours of the 27th, our refinery is being 
pushed to completion as rapidly as possible, and we are making 
good progress in its construction. We hope to begin refining 
oil by March 1. . . . The outlook for the oil company is not sd 
bright. Our well No. 1 seems now to have utterly failed, but 
we are doing our best to bring it back to life again. 

"Very truly yours, "SAN JACINTO OIL CO." 

A poor widow writes: 

"It was only because of the confidence we had in the honest} 
and integrity of Dr. Cranfill, that we took stock in the compa- 
nies. We had a little money invested that was bringing a fair 
interest, that we put into the oil company. Dr. Cranfill made 
such a flattering account of the prospects of the company; he* 
told me it would be the best investment I ever made. Through! 
his representation that the dividends in both companies would 
be so large, we were led to give our notes for shares in the Re- 
fining Company, expecting to pay for them with the money re- 
ceived. It was misrepresented to us. The loss of our money has 
been very hard on us. It was gotten by the most fearful econ- 
omizing, and it will be a long time before we can replace it. 

"MRS. ." 

A poor man writes: 

"I have taken the Standard for years, and had the greatest 
confidence in the man. ... I have 1,000 shares in the Refin 
ing Company and 200 shares in the San Jacinto Oil Company. I 
went in in good faith, and am poor and very needy. It is through 






CONSPIRACY TRIAL 18? 

and I wrote Dr. Cranfill, inquiring what the trouble was. In reply I 
received a letter informing me that the company had been placed 
in the hands of a receiver. 

"I also bought 1,100 shares of the stock of San Jacinto Oil Re- 
fining and Tank Car Company at 5c per share, from Dr. Cranfill, 
as Treasury stock. "ALFRED RYMELL, Cleveland, Ohio." 

Mr. L. J. Stroop of Clifton, Texas, gave J. B. Cranfill $150 
for 3,000 shares of the San Jacinto Oil Refining and Tank Car 
Company stock, Certificate No. 1457. 

Mr. T. L. Hoff of Gloster, Mass., bought from J. B. Cranfill 
1,100 shares in the Refining at 5c per share, and 300 shares In 
the San Jacinto Oil Company at $63. He was induced, he says, 
to buy his stock by very encouraging circular letters from Mr. 
Canfill. 

Mr. W. E. Prichard of 35 Wilmot St., Pittsburg, Pa., writes: 
"According to the circular, he has certainly played a part far 
from what one had a right to expect from a man who professed 
to be a Christian — a follower of the Lord Jesus, a Baptist min- 
ister, and an editor of a religious journal. 

"I confess I have been puzzled over the affairs of the Oil 
Company and have wondered why it should have gone into the 
hands of a receiver. But, having great confidence in Mr. Cran- 
fill, supposed there were some things about it which those of us 
living at a distance did not know, that necessitated this, and that 
it was all right. I have 10,000 shares of the San Jacinto Oil Re- 
fining and Tank Car Company. These I got through Mr. Cran- 
fill, to whom I sent the money, paying 5c per share ($500). I 
also have 2,500 shares of the San Jacinto Oil Co. These I also 
got through Mr. Cranfill, paying 10c a share for 500 ($50), 15c 
for 500 ($75), and 20c a share for 1,500 ($300), making in all 
$425. ($925 in all.) I, like many others, invested, supposing the 
money would be perfectly safe in the hands of men who stood 
well in the Christian world. "W. T. PRITCHARD." 

He Drew on the Prohibitionists. 

"Wigwam, Ind., July 5, 1903. 
"I own 2,000 -shares of stock in the San Jacinto Oil Refining 
and Tank Car Company. . . It was an advertisement in the 
New Voice, a prohibition paper published at Chicago, that was 
the cause of me investing in the Company. The Wisconsin peo- 
ple who invested were caught the same way, as many of them 
are Prohibitionists. "JONATHAN TOWELL." 



188 THE COMPLETE 

I would not have put one cent in the company. I assumed that 
the personal integrity of Mr. Cranflll guaranteed to each investor 
the proper application of the money, and the careful guarding 
of the interests of the whole number of stockholders. I am also 
holder of stock in the San Jacinto Oil Company. 

"WM. E. TAYLOR." 
He Keeps Up the Fire. 
Meantime, the "Reverend" Doctor Cranfill was plying his vo- 
cation assiduously. He writes: 

"Dallas, Texas, January 10, 1903. 
"Our Refinery, which is being constructed at Corsicana, Texas, 
is being pushed into completion as rapidly as possible. . . . The 
price of crude oil is advancing rapidly. This is very much to 
our advantage. . . . We have contracted to sell at a favorable 
price all the oil we can refine. (Signed) 

"SAN JACINTO OIL REFINING AND TANK CAR CO." 
Ten days later: 

"Dallas, Texas, January 20, 1903. 
"We regret to advise that the San Jacinto Oil Company has 
been placed in the hands of a receiver. ... It was tried Jan- 
uary 16 at Fort Worth. . . . The judge appointed Mr. G. W. 
Armstrong of that city as receiver. . . . The receiver will send 
out a statement. (Signed) "SAN JACINTO OIL CO." 

Twelve days later: 

"Fort Worth, Texas, February 2, 1903. 
"In response to the many letters I am receiving ... I have 
prepared this circular letter (Then follows an inventory of the 
property: Oil Well No. 1, $10,000; No. 3, $5,000; equipments, etc., 
$10,286.53'; 25 oil tank cars, $12,500). Oil Well No. 1 is pro- 
ducing at this time 500 barrels a day at 50c a barrel. 

(Signed) "G. W. ARMSTRONG, 

"Receiver San Jacinto Oil Company." 
(Mr. Armstrong is a brother-in-law of Mr. A. B. Flanary, the 
"Reverend" Cranfill's attorney.) 

Five hundred barrels of oil a day at 50c a barrel brings $250 
a day, which, for 300 days in the year, amounts to $75,000 per 
annum! 

(These are the wells that went dry.) 
More Letters. 

"Alma, Mich., July 9, 1903. 

"Such duplicity as that which you have exposed seems almost 
beyond belief. My certificate for 1,000 shares is No. 2301. Pur- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 189 

chased in July, at 5c per share. I was induced to purchase 
through reading the advertisements signed by J. B. Cranfill and 
appearing in The New Voice, and The Interior, of Chicago. 

"J. T. EWING." 

C. M. Geddes bought 32,000 shares; N. M. Edwards represents 
20,000 shares, and S. L. Oliver represents 6,000 shares, making a 
total of 58,000 shares. All of Williamsport, Pa. 

"Newbury, Vt., July 9, 1903. 

"I was induced to buy some of the Oil Company stock at 25c 
per share through an advertisement by J. B. Cranfill in the 'New 
Voice,' printed in Chicago. He predicted that the stock would 
soon advance to 50c per share. This was in April, and the first 
of July 1 was much gratified to receive a dividend of 5 per cent 
on par value, with the prediction that a similar dividend would 
be paid every three months. Not receiving another dividend in 
October, I wrote the company, received a very nice letter in 
which they say 'the company is more than paying expenses.' 'Our 
No. 3 is flowing 1,500 barrels of oil per day.' Then I thought 
surely a dividend will be declared by January 1st, and you may 
well imagine my surprise when I received the circular announc- 
ing that the company had gone into the hands of a receiver, who 
reported that Well No. 1 was then producing 500 barrels per 
day. About the 13th of June, 1902 ... I received a letter from 
J. B. Cranfill, concerning the sale of stock in the Refining and 
Tank Car Co., saying, T am authorized to still offer you the stock 
until June 20th at 5c per share.' At this time I had paid on the 
Oil Company stock, so I concluded to try some of this stock also, 
as I could get it at half-price before June 20th, so sent check 
for 5,000 shares . . . which reads 'Capital Stock.' It surely 
would seem that Mr. Cranfill was in it for what he could make, 
and that $100,000 or over should have gone into the treasury of 
the Refining Company, instead of his own pocket. 

"S. L. SWASEY." 

Another writes: 

"My first investment was made through reading the adver- 
tisement of the Oil Company in the Baptist Union of Chicago, 
with an endorsement by the editor of J. B. Cranfill as being 
thoroughly reliable in every way. I then communicated with 
him and bought 400 shares of the Oil Company's stock at 25o 
per share. I also received a statement of the intention to form 
a company for the manufacture of tank cars and and an oil re- 
finery, with a very glowing account of the probable profits of 
from 50 to 100 per cent on the investment, and offering me the 



190 THE COMPLETE 

stock at the inside figures of 5c per share. I was foolish enough 
to send him $250 for 5,000 shares of the S. J. O. R. & T. C. Co., 
which I still hold as a reminder of my folly. Have been a hard 
working farmer, and what I have invested has been earned by 
the sweat of my brow. " " 

These are only a few extracts from many long letters. 
Summary. 

1. The date of the organization of the San Jacinto Oil Com- 
pany was not correctly given at the start. It was not organized 
on San Jacinto Day, April 21, but long afterwards. 

2. The oilless lands on which it was organized and which 
were to • be "developed," and on which stock was sold, have 
never had a cent expended on them from that day to this. So 
far as indications are concerned, they are practically valueless. 
"Reverend" Cranfill, who had the whole matter in hand, had no 
confidence in them. 

3. But although this was strictly a wildcat corporation at 
the beginning, yet three lots were bought near wells that were 
gushing at the time. Every one of these three lots became 
gushers, and would have paid the stockholders handsomely, but 
for another scheme. 

4. In the list of lands bought later were some mentioned at 
Sour Lake and in Nacogdoches County. Both of these regions 
are now yielding oil; Sour Lake abundantly, with fine prospects 
for Nacogdoches County. 

5. Before any signs of failure manifested themselves in the 
San Jacinto oil wells, circulars were sent out containing the 
significant clause, "If the Beaumont oil wells last!" Why this 
ghastly "IF?" 

6. April 30, 1902, a dividend of 5 per cent was declared, and 
the money to pay it was loaned by the "Reverend" J. B. Cranfill. 
and a mortgage taken on the company to secure the loan! That 
is, he took the money that he had got on the sale of stocks, 
claimed it as his own, loaned it to the company of which he 
was President, and took a mortgage on the company in favor 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 191 

of himself! Why not make the dividend for 10 per cent and 
take a mortgage for twice the amount? We shall see. 

7. Five days afterwards, May 5, 1902, the San Jacinto Oil 
Refining and Tank Car Company was organized. Just five days 
after declaring the dividend! This new company was to en- 
hance the value of the San Jacinto Oil stock. "Seventy-five tank 
cars were to be bought for $75,000!" A line of steamers was to 
be bought!!!" "A Refinery was to be built!!" The two com- 
panies were to be twin sisters. The Oil Company stock would 
be enhanced "100 per cent!" The Refinery Company would be 
enhanced "500 per cent! ! !" Those who held the Oil Stock would 
get "quarterly dividends," "5 to 10 per cent!" And they would 
be let in on the "ground floor" of the Refinery Company, which 
would "jointly operate the tank cars and the steamers!" Buy 
^quick, or you will be too late! ! ! 

8. Of the 2,500,000 shares of Oil Stock, no one yet knows 
how many shares were sold. It was announced that the last was 
sold at 25c a share, and that many regretted not buying at that 
price! For aught that is known, the Stock Book could have 
been large enough for twice as many shares as the charter called 
for. There would in such case be one way out of it; freeze out 
the Stockholders; buy up the stock at a nominal price, and no 
one could ever be the wiser! 

9. Of the 5,000,000 shares of Refinery stock, the Promoters 
took 2,500,000, fixing the ground floor price at 2c a share. 

10. Then it was offered to the friends and stockholders of the 
Oil Company at (notice the article "a") "a ground floor price of 
5c a share!" Thus there was a private "ground floor price" of 
2c a share, and a public "ground floor price" of 5c a share! 

11. President J. B. Cranflll, who had hired his services to the 
company at $3,000 a year, to sell their stock and build the Re- 
finery, when he received an order would fill it with his Pro- 
moter Stock, for which he had paid 2c a share to purchasers 
whom he charged 5c a share, telling them that 5c was a favor 
to them and a "ground floo rprice!" 



192 THE COMPLETE 

12. During the month of July, 1902, besides other large 
amounts, he sold $24,000 of stock for the company and himself, 
designating his own Promoter's Stock on his books by his ini- 
tials, "J. B. C."! During that month he had sold $24,000 worth, 
of which $10,000 was designated by the initials "J. B. C." Of 
the $24,000, $14,000 was entered on his cash books to the credit 
of the Company, claiming only $10,000 for himself. But he after- 
wards wrote on the margin of his cash book: "Errors. Charged 
to account of J. B. Cranfill; transfers, and should not have been 
entered here." (Certificates 2301 to 2783, inclusive.)" Thus trans 

-ferring $14,000 from the Company's credit to his own private 
account! He could write the same thing opposite any other 
stock sold. 

13. In all this sale of stock he was making the impression 
on the purchaser that their money would go towards "building 
the Refinery;" and of the $115,000 worth of stock sold, he claimed 
nearly all of it. He sold, he says, 3,500,000 shares, of which he 
claims 2,500,000 shares were Promoters' Stock, and less than 
1,000,000 shares Company's stock. 

While "Doctor" Cranfill was at the Eastman Hotel, at Hot 
Springs, feasting on pate de foie gras, he sent the following 
telegram to Dr. J. B. Moody: 

The Telegram. 

"Hot Springs, Arkansas. 

"Dear Brother Moody: I send you the 6,000 shares of Treas- 
ury Stock to-day through the bank, with draft attached for $600. 
You are very fortunate in securing this treasury stock at this 
price. Fraternally yours, • "J. B. CRANFILL." 

The above was returned and exchanged for 5,000 shares, and 
the other 1,000 shares were sent to President J. W. Conger, 
Arkadelphia, Arkansas. You see it was called "Treasury Stock" 
by the "Reverend Doctor" himself. 

Pate de Foie Gras. 

Br. Moody was his special friend. Dr. Moody was in failing 
health. The "Reverend" Doctor Cranfill published in his own 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 193 

paper, the Baptist (?) Standard (?) that he left his office in 
Dallas to escape the shrieks of the telephone; that he spent a 
week at the Eastman with horse-racers and gamblers; that he 
sat with them at the same table; and that his meat was not 
like that of John the Baptists, locusts and wild honey, but pate 
de foie gras. As some of the stockholders who read this do not 
and will never otherwise know anything about the pate de foie 
gras, and as it has become an important factor in the San Ja- 
cinto oil business, I here stop to define: This pie is a baked 
preparation of abnormally fattened liver of goose, a dish of 
France, originating at Strasbourg and Toulouse. The geese are 
kept up, fed on rich food, and after three weeks, on oils, flour 
and antimony. Then follows the forcing of food down the throat 
of the poor creatures until they can hardly breathe. This in- 
human trade is said to be at Strasbourg about $500,000 annually, 
exactly equal to the capital stock of the Refinery. The goose 
liver attains to the weight of one or two pounds, and even more. 
The "Reverend" Doctor Cranfill says he was living on these fat 
livers when he sent Dr. Moody the telegram. 

Sydney Smith says that "Friendship is often destroyed by 
cheese, and that hard salt meat had led to suicide." In the case 
of pate de foie gras it is a little remarkable that Dr. Moody was 
charged 10c a share at Hot Springs, but afterwards got it reduced 
to 5c. Saadi, the Persian poet, "the nightingale of a thousand 
songs," says: "The slave to his belly seldom worships God." But 
Saadi was a hermit, and never smelt pate de foie gras. By the 
way, there is a striking suggestiveness in this oily Hot Springs 
fat goose liver pies and the San Jacinto Oil Stock. I speak from 
actual observation: In the Jardin d'Acclimation, Paris, France, 
I witnessed the operation of making fat goose livers. The geese 
were in compartments in a cylinder, say eight feet in diameter 
and twelve feet high. This cylinder turned on an iron pivot 
through the center, from bottom to top. Each goose occupied 
about a foot square, making about twenty-four around the cylin- 
der at the bottom, and rising in twelve stories, one above the 
other, to the top. The operator did his work rapidly and with . 



194 THE COMPLETE 

ease. It was a gruesome sight. In his left hand he held the 
nozzle of a rubber pipe which connected with the fluid food in a 
tank near by, and with his right hand thrust through the iron 
gates, he drew the goose's head out, choked his mouth open, 
thrust in the nozzle, pressed a valve in the tube, which let in 
the forced fluid fattening preparation until the goose was as 
full as a bottle to its mouth. Drawing out his nozzle, he turned 
the cylinder to the next goose, pulled his head through the grates, 
pressed his throat open, thrust in the nozzle, opened the valve 
and filled him. Thus he went around the cylinder, moving it 
around while keeping his seat on a stool. He then moved to the 
next story, filled each of the twenty-four geese in it, and passed 
to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth story. By this time he had gone 
to the extent of his reach. Mounting a step-ladder, he continued 
the process of filling the helpless geese to the top row. He had 
fed to the full about 288 geese by this process. I do not speak 
accurately, but it would not surprise me if the purchasers of this 
Stock, when all found, should exactly equal 288 in each section. 
There are about six thousand San Jacinto Oil Stockholders. In 
the Refinery Company there are about two thousand. Eight thou- 
sand in all. Most are honest, hardworking widows, orphans, old 
men, preachers, women and children. They were risking all 
they had, with the hope of saving something to live on in their 
helpless old age. It reminds me of the man whose mule had a 
cough. The owner was advised to take a quill, fill it with a 
certain prepared powder, open the mule's mouth and blow it 
down her throat. Just as the owner took a full breath to re- 
lieve his afflicted brute, she coughed and blew the powder down 
her owner's throat! When asked whether the powder had helped 
the mule, the owner simply answered, "She coughed first." For- 
tunate indeed were the San Jacinto Stockholders, had they 
coughed first! 

He Plies His Friends. 

Dr. Moody writes: 

"Peewee Valley, Ky., June 23, 1903. 

"Dr. J. B. Cranfill was my trusted friend, and I have trusted 
him. To-morrow I will be sixtyfive years old, broken in health 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 195 

and fortune, without a pastorate or income. In order to have 
something to keep me off the charity fund, I invested $500 in 
San Jacinto Oil Company at 10c a share — 5,000 shares at $500. 
See inclosed telegram as to how this was brought about, and 
also inclosed circulars. Later I invested $500 in San Jacinto Oil 
Refining Company at 5c per share — 10,000 shares at $500. See 
circulars leading me to it. I can yet suppose, despite all repre- 
sentations to the contrary, that he was honest up to my last in- 
vestment; but, if since that time, he has sought to feather his 
nest with misfortunes of his friends and brethren in the Lord, 
then my confidence in him is gone, and I must suppose that, like 
Judas, he was a devil before the time of betrayal. I am for 
mercy and peace first, but there is a time when these ought and 
shall give way to justice. This is the method of God's dealing 
with us. "J. B. MOODY." 

Think of it. He made a trip to the Eastman Hotel, $10 a day 
to get away from what he calls "telephone shrieks." He had ar 
ranged him in Dallas a "one-way telephone." That is, a tele 
phone which put him in communication with outsiders, but when 
outsiders called him, they were informed by the Central office 
that he had only a "one-way phone." The connecting arrange- 
ment was exclusively in his own hands. He sat in his office, 
marked, after the manner of Bankers, Cotton Factors, Pool 
Rooms, etc., "Private!" Adjoining his room was his Secretary, 
who had a phone. If a "confidential" friend, favorite or other 
preferred person, called, the Secretary could confer with "Doc- 
tor" Cranfill as to whether the applicant should be admitted to 
audience! If not deemed profitable, some excuse could be given: 
"Dr. Cranfill is not here;" "Dr. Cranfill is not feeling well;" "Dr. 
Cranfill is indisposed to-day," or whatever seemed to be the mind 
of the "spirit." I may digress here to say that it has been told 
on "Doctor" Cranfill that when one of these orphan girls, or some 
old man or woman, would send him in $100, $500, or $1,000, say- 
ing they invested so as to double their money, his sides would 
shake with laughter like the walls of a Charleston brick store 
under seismic vibration! It tickled him nearly to death! 

A prominent physician in Dallas, who knows him well, pro- 
nounces him a "Degenerate." 



196 THE COMPLETE 

Among the brethren of strong faith was the venerable evan- 
gelist A. P. Graves, of California. The venerable and confiding 
man put in 20,000 shares at 5c a share. 

The "Reverend Doctor's" books showed that he sold, up to 
October 24, 1902, 1,961,192 shares! Where did he get these 
shares? In the charter he only took 250,000 Promoters' Shares, 
his brother T. E. Cranfill 125,000 shares, and his son T. E. Cran- 
fill, Jr., 250,000; total for the Cranfills, 625,000 shares. But J. B. 
Cranfill sold for his account nearly 2,000,000 shares, or nearly 
three times as much as the Cranfills owned! Where did he get 
these shares? It must be borne in mind that Promoter Stock 
cost only 2c a share, and no Treasury stock was sold for less 
than 5c to 7^ c a share! Remember, not a cent of dividends has 
been issued to any stockholder in the Refinery Company, while 
the "Reverend Doctor" Cranfill claims to have sold on his own 
account 1,961,192 shares at 5c to 7^0, say on an average 6^0 
a share. This gives him, by his own confession, $122,574.40. This 
was up to October 24, 1902. Add to this what was afterwards 
sold in November, December, January, February, March, April, 
May, seven months, when he stepped down and out, and Mr. 
J. H. Finks became president at $3,000 a year. Mr. Finks was 
United States Commissioner at Dallas. 

14. Again, let it be borne in mind that he stated that he had 
bought 110 acres of land in Dallas for the Refinery plant; that 
he had bought "75 tank cars for $75,000," and that "a contract 
had been practically closed for a Refinery" with "money enough 
in the treasury to pay for all;" that the company did not owe a 
cent for anything; that "the Refinery would begin to sell oil 
by January, 1903," and that he would buy "a line of steamers! ! ! !" 

It must also be remembered that the Refinery was to cost 
$80,000! "Money in hand to pay for it!" That the 75 tank cars 
cost $75,000; had 35 cars delivered and paid for, with money 
in hand to pay for the other 40! And that the "Line of Steam- 
ers" would soon materialize!!! 

16. Now remember that all the tank cars have been sold. 
Mr. J. H. Finks, the new president of the Refinery Company, says 



CONSPIRAOY TRIAI 19? 

of the large indebtedness against it, "I will mention a few of the 

largest: 

Petroleum Iron Works (company which built the plant) $18,000 

Oil City Iron Works 662 

Whitsell & Co., brick and lumber 2,000 

Charles McQuillan # 916 

(Signed) "J. H. FINKS, President." 

"June 24, 1903." 

Compare this with the statements over the "Reverend" Doc- 
tor Cranfill's name, six months before, that he had "in hand the 
money to pay for the Refinery and for the tank cars." The Re- 
finery, it is said, is to cost $80,000, and the 75 tank cars, $75,000, 
a total of $155,000 "in hand" January, 1903, to say nothing of 
stock sold since. What is still more to the point, Mr. Finks says 
that he did not know, when he became President, that there was 
a debt on the Refinery plant! Furthermore, Mr. Finks says in 
writing that he "borrowed from Doctor Cranfill $25,000 to pay 
the debts against the Refinery Company!" And, oh Conscience, 
the Refinery is on "leased land!" And owes Dr. Cranfill $25,000! 
This, pate de foie gras, Hot Springs, Eastman Hotel, J. B. Moody, 
or in the language of the Baron Munchausen: "Gog, Magog, Bog 
and Fog." 

How This Swindle Became Possible, 

First. When Drs. Burleson, Anderson and others exposed the 
embezzlement of mission money, a few years ago, the Carrolls 
rushed to the "spirit-guided" pate de foie gras ex-Secretary, 
threw their shields over him, unsheathed their swords, and swore 
that they would with their last drop of blood protect "the organ- 
ized work." In vain the juries, with a unanimity scarcely known 
in the history of jurisprudence, declared that we, Drs. Burleson, 
Anderson and others had told the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth. Gambrell, Hanks, Truett, C. C. Slaugh- 
ter, L. D. Lamkin, the Carrolls and others, closed in serried pha- 
lanx around the form of this man who was sighing that he had 



198 THE COMPLETE 

not gone to the foreign field twenty years ago (God save the 
mark!), and declared that it was but a revival of the old anti- 
missionary Hardshell, Campbellite, Mormonism of three-quarters 
of a century ago! They raised the solemn spirit-guided inter- 
rogtary: "Brethren, if you can't trust us, in the name of God, 
whom can you trust?" Responsive as an echo came from the lips 
of many innocent men, women and children: "If we can't trust 
these brethren, whom can we trust?" Like the tones of a bell, 
these conjurations touched responsively the hearts of the broth- 
erhood east of the Mississippi River everywhere. Added to this 
case the Prohibition slogan. Here was its Vice-Presidential can- 
didate! He conjured with the name of Joshua Levering, and 
finally said: "He has joined our Directory." 

This, Mr. Levering denies. I have it in his own hand. Every- 
body believes him. ■ 

It is a significant fact that neither Defendants Gambrell, the 
Carrolls, nor Hanks, nor Slaughter, nor any Defendant nor any 
other well informed man as to the character of Defendant Cran- 
fill invested a cent in his oil scheme. Nor did any of the Texas 
beneficiaries. They seemed to know that the people to be worked 
were not themselves. It is an unquestionable fact that all the 
"Leaders" among the Defendants and most of their Beneficia 
ries were 'well aware or ought to have been at the time that 
Defendant Cranfill was appropriating to his own use the mis- 
sion funds and that he was draining the pockets of others of 
their well-earned money. There are women in Dallas now whom 
the Leaders would not instruct, who spent all they had and are 
now washing or doing other work for a living. It is an evident 
fact that the character of Defendant Cranfill is well known to 
the Defendants generally. But they endorsed him in a partisan 
fight at the beginning, for self interest, and they have been put 
in the unfortunate category of having to defend a man whom they 
well knew was defrauding the people and looting the mission 
treasury, at least they had every means of knowing it, and re- 
fused to know it. Like Lord Nelson, they turned their blind 
eye upon it in order that they might have it to say that they did 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 199 

not know it. The fact that they shut their eyes is proof that 
they did know it, or they need not have shut their eyes to it. 

What of it All? 

"Pappy Buckner's" lawyers notified him that all his property 
would go to satisfy the claims of the Stockholders, unless 
"Pappy Buckner'" hides it. "Pappy Buckner" held a family 
meeting and declared that he would not hide his property, and 
that if the Courts so decreed, it could all go, to the last dollar, to 
reimburse the despoiled Stockholders. But he nevertheless sold 
much or all of his property. He admits it in the Baptist 
Standard of Dec. 6, 1905. The Word and Way, in an editorial, 
correctly says: "No man can maintain his highest self-respect 
who will see the despoiled Stockholders unreimbursed as long 
as he has a dollar left." 

Had the faithful warnings of Drs. Burleson, Anderson and 
others been heeded, all this Baptist turmoil in Texas would have 
been avoided, the innocent Stockholders, widows, orphans, old 
men, preachers, women and children would have been saved 
their property and much hardship spared them. The cause of re- 
ligion would have been unshamed, and even the "Reverend" 
Doctor Cranfill himself would have been spared the hardest lot 
that can come to a man; for had it not been for the constructive 
endorsement of his misappropriation of the mission fund to his 
own use, he might have been set on a different line of life. As 
it is, nothing but disaster awaits him. The rigid logic of the 
Court House has already in part and yet more fully unearth 
these and other things until now his sun is forever clouded and 
will set in sorrow, gloom and shame. 

A Word of Warning. 

The "Reverend Doctor" Cranfill privately handed out to some 
Stockholders small amounts of money! Not as dividends! Not 
at all! But for purposes best known to himself. He stepped 
out of the Presidency of the Oil Company, and it went into the 
hands of a Receiver! He stepped out of the Refinery Company, 



200 THE COMPLETE 

and Mr. J. H. Finks took his place! He thus effected a condi- 
tion to "refer" all communications to these new officials! It is 
like the partnership between the two colored blacksmiths. They 
ran a shop under the firm name, "Lige and Moses, Blacksmiths." 
They got in debt and dissolved! They then put over the shop 
this notice: "Dis firm am dis day dissolved. Mose goes out; 
Lige stays in. Dose who owe de firm, apply to Lige. Dose who 
de firm owes, apply to Mose." 

The reader must pardon the seeming levity in the narrative 
above. It was thought better than the lachrymose style. Each 
Stockholder has his silent hour. Look up. The best of life re- 
mains. Charles Lamb says: "A laugh is worth a hundred groans 
in any market." Some one has said that "More hardships have 
been laughed out by wit and virtue than by solemn lectures 
drawn from sin." That all men laugh, shows that the function 
is divine. 



The clouds, which rise with thunder, slake 

Our thirsty souls with rain; 

The blow most dreaded falls to break 

From off our limbs a chain: 

And wrongs of man to man but make 

The love of God more plain. 

As through the shadowy lens of even 

The eye looks farthest into heaven 

On gleams erf stars and depths of blue 

The glaring sunshine never knew! 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 201 

CHAPTER XVIII. 
A Dastardly Mystery. 

Few people have any conception of the wickedness of human 
passions when once aroused. These passions seem to grow larger 
under the warm cloak of religion as plants grow in a hot house. 
None of the sad and shameful scenes that have occurred in our 
Texas Baptist ranks could have been possible but for the extrav- 
agance of the wrongs committed, the credulity of honest-minded 
people and the incredibility of the truth that men professing 
unusual sanctity would or could practice the worst of vices. The 
incident here related will illustrate the truth of this statement 

About three weeks, perhaps, before the meeting of the Baptist 
General Convention in Dallas in 1899, as I stepped off the Oak 
Cliff car at the corner of Commerce and Jefferson streets, the 
terminus at that time, a man stepped out of a barroom door over 
which was the name "Holland's Saloon," and spoke to me in a 
cordial and friendly manner. He wore a white apron and a white 
cap, and I took him to be Mr. Holland himself, and so addressed 
him. He stated that he had important information about J. B. 
Cranfill that would be of value to my lawyers in the Conspiracy 
Trial case. He said he was in sympathy with me in my suit with 
Cranfill, was well acquainted with Cranfill's history, and would, 
if I wanted it, give me information that would be valuable to my 
lawyers in the approaching trial. He then went on to relate 
matters of his personal knowledge concerning Defendant Cran- 
fill. He was evidently acquainted minutely with Cranfill's life, foi 
he related many events showing it, so that my suspicion was 
entirely disarmed and my confidence in the sincerity of the 
man's statements was wholly secured. But he added that I need 
not take his word for it, as he had in his possession at home let- 
ters from Defendant Cranfill which would be very helpful to my 
lawyers. And he promised to bring down the letters the next 
morning and as I got off the cars he would give them to me if I 
wanted them. I told him" I would like to have them. The next 



202 THE COMPLETE 

morning he met me again, but explained that he had forgotten 
the letters, as he was up very late last night and had come down 
very early that morning. All this time I was addressing him in 
conversation as "Mr. Holland," and he was addressing me famil- 
iarly by my name. He said, however, that he would be sure to 
bring the letters the following morning. But when I next met 
him he expressed his regret that he was kept up so late and 
forced down so early he had again come off without the letters. 
This continued for over a week. Sometimes as I got off the 
cars he was not in sight and I supposed he was back in the 
saloon and passed on to my office without seeing him. Then 
again he would meet me and repeat in brief what he had pre- 
viously gone over and say he would take the time at home to get 
the letters which he had laid away somewhere, but kept forget- 
ting for weeks, reaching home so late and having to leave each 
morning so early. This was kept up, off and on, for two or tkree 
weeks. Finally one morning he met me as I got off the car and 
explained that as he had failed so often to look for the letters 
he would mention it to his wife that night and she would bring 
the letters to me at my office and explain all the facts to me 
as she knew all about it. I still suspected nothing wrong, but 
stated to him that as she was a lady she could not give me the 
information that he could, and that I would wait until he could 
get the letters. He replied that "she did not mind it, and would 
feel no hesitancy in telling me all about it?" Still I suspected 
nothing, but positively declined to speak with any one about the 
matter but himself. All this time I was addressing him as "Mr. 
Holland," of which he made no correction, and gave no hint that 
he was not Mr. Holland. I learned he was not Mr. Holland in the 
following way: Some two or three weeks had passed and nothing 
having come definitely of the letters he was to give me, I sent 
a note to him as "Mr. Holland" requesting him to call at my 
office. When "Mr. Holland" came in I immediately saw that he 
was not the man I had been conversing with and apologized for 
putting him to the trouble of coming to my office, whereupon he 
told me that the name of the man I had been conversing with 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 203 

was Clark, that he had no wife and that he had left his employ- 
ment. I never met Mr. Clark afterwards. 

Now comes the mysterious part of this story: About two 
days before the meeting of the Convention at Dallas, 1899, one of 
my attorneys, Hon. Joseph E. Cockrell, called me on the phone 
and asked me "particulars about the fight I had with Mr. Clark 
at the corner of Jefferson and Commerce streets." Mr. Cockrell 
said he had been "telephoned by Mr. George D. Armistead, City 
Editor of the Dallas Times Herald, that there had been a fight 
between Mr. Clark and myself because of something I had said to 
Mr. Clark's wife." As Mr. Cockrell had been called up over the 
phone by Mr. Armistead, I inquired of Mr. Armistead the source 
of his information. He stated that "Dr. J. B. Cranfill, (whose 
paper was printed by the Times Herald) had notified him that 
a fight had occurred between Mr. Clark and Dr. Hayden at the 
corner of Commerce and Jefferson streets at the car station, and 
suggested that if Mr. Armistead would go down there he could 
get the particulars." Defendant Cranfill evidently telephoned to 
Mr. Armistead in good faith as to what should have occurred at 
the Oak Cliff terminal, for he could have had no motive in giving 
the City Editor of the Times-Herald false information so easily 
refuted. It is positively certain that Cranfill thought it was 
true. How did he come to think it true? Did "Mr. Clark" of 
the Holland saloon inform him? What motive could Mr. Clark 
have had for giving false information to Defendant Cranfill? 
Without pecuniary consideration, Clark could have had no mo- 
tive. Why would Clark or any one else inform Defedant Cranfill 
only and not others? Let him solve it who can! Mr. Armi- 
stead went to Defendant Cranfill and asked him for the source 
of his information. Cranfill did not give it, nor has he ever given 
it. His reply to Mr. Armistead's inquiry was, that "some one 
told him on the street." Why would Defendant Cranfill telephone 
Mr. Armistead on the strength of information received from 
some one on the street not sufficiently important to be remem- 
bered? The statement was sensational to the last degree. The 
Convention was to meet in two days. Both parties were rallying 



204 THE COMPLETE 

their forces. The purpose to "Crush Hayden" was avowed. So 
disgraceful a thing as the scene reported by Defendant Cran- 
fill would "crush" beyond question. Could any one forget the 
source of information of an event so vital to the contest? 

The Convention, as stated, was to assemble in two or three 

days. It was believed and published in The Texas Baptist Herald 
that "the Church Party would have a majority." What if the 
Church Party should have a large majority as they claimed, and 
be able to organize the Convention and take charge of its various 
interests? Was such a thing as that to be risked? This Church 
Party majority was feared! The fear was well founded. It 
was intended by the Church Party to organize the Convention on 
the Constitution, treat all fairly, try to conciliate the dissenters 
and restore the normal conditions of the work. Defendant Gam- 
brell, even after the Convention met, went to the railroad ticket 
agents and asked an extension of time on reduced rates and no- 
tice was sent out to various portions of the State for reinforce- 
ments, the report of the Committee on Credentials was held up 
until these reinforcements could arrive, and the credentials of 
these belated recruits were written in Dallas Saturday night and 
Sunday on the letter heads of the American Baptist Publica- 
tion Society! The peril was imminent. Defeat for the Board 
Party, they felt, would be disastrous! But if the editor of The 
Texas Baptist Herald could be brought into personal alterca- 
tion with some one, even a bar tender, he would either appear in 
the Convention bruised and scarred like a ruffian and exposed to 
the contempt of the distinguished visitors from almost every part 
of the United States, or else he would be conspicuous for his ab- 
sence from the Convention on account of his "fight with Mr. 
Clark on the corner of Jefferson and Commerce streets!" Note 
that this message of street information, which went from "*ome 
one" to Cranfill, from Cranfill to the Times-Herald, from the 
Times-Herald to Mr. Cockrell and from Mr. Cockrell to me, was 
not accidental. Some one started it. It could not have been 
Defendant Cranfill. He could have no motive in putting Mr. 
Armistead on a false trail. Mr. Armistead was Defendant Cran- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 205 

fill's friend. The Times-Herald was printing Defendant Cranfill's 
paper, the Baptist Standard. Defendant Cranfill had no disposi- 
tion to trifle with the city editor of the friendly firm that was 
doing his work. Defendant Cranfill evidently thought it was 
true. He would not send his friend to the Oak Cliff Terminal on 
a fool's errand. He evidently thought the affair had certainly 
transpired. What is the solution? Some one did it for a con- 
sideration. Whoever would accept the consideration for so ne- 
farious a purpose would not hesitate to demand pay in advance 
and after receiving pay, telephone that the contract had dmsu 
executed and then leave the payer to pursue his wishes, believing 
it to be true. "Clark" could have agreed with any one to have 
the fight, provided payment for such service was made in ad- 
vance! He could then telephone that he had executed his 
contract, had had the fight and let whoever paid him for it be 
deceived into believing that he had executed the work he had 
been paid to perform. He had his money. His employer was 
helpless. If Clark would agree to perform the deed for pay, and 
if anyone would agree to pay him for it, it would be less debasing 
and more convenient to accept the pay for the deed without per- 
forming it than otherwise. His agreement were better kept in 
the breach than in the observance, and far less dangerous under 
the law. Defendant Cranfill, without good reason to believe it to 
be true, would not have telephoned the Times-Herald to "go 
down to the corner of Jefferson and Commerce streets, and get all 
the details of the fight between Clark and Hayden on account 
of something that Hayden had said to Clark's wife!" Clark, who 
had for three weeks responded to the name Holland, had no wife. 
He could, of course, get any unfortunate to personate a wife 
When Cranfill telephoned Mr. Armistead, he evidently felt cer- 
tain that it was so. Clark, Mr. Holland said, had no wife, al- 
though he had proposed to send his "wife" to my office with 
Cranfill's letters, and explain all! It would be an awful thing on 
me to come to the vital hour of the contest at the Dallas Con- 
rention scarred and bruised by a low, disgraceful fight with any 
one, especially under the circumstances. In the providence of 



206 THE COMPLETE 

God, Clark betrayed some one into believing it, and Cranfill is a 
link in the chain of deception, for he telephoned it to Mr. Arm- 
istead! And then, when Mr. Armistead inquired of Defendant 
Cranfill the name of his informant, Cranfill had it from "some- 
one on the street!" Cranfill had, on several occasions, threatened 
to "take a shot gun and blow S. A. Hayden's brains out." This 
he said to the saintly and now glorified Dr. J. H. Luther, who 
told me so, and to other eminent Baptist men now living. 1 
would not quote Dr. Luther were he not beyond the shafts of sin 
and were there not eminent Baptist preachers living who heard 
the same. These living preachers inform me that Cranfill made 
his pious (?) remark at San Antonio in 1897, at Waco in 1898. 
and on several other occasions. Dr. Luther told me that he 
heard Cranfill make the statement in Cranfill's office in Waco 
previous to 1898. 

But testimony of the most indubitable character connects De- 
fendant Cranfill with this dastardly scheme. Mr. M. W. Kirby 
was formerly Chief of Police in the city of Dallas. He is a man 
of the highest integrity. He was once a detective with Ed Corn- 
well, the same who bribed the witness W. R. Morris. Now, while 
the bar-tender Clark, was attempting to deliver letters to me 
by the hands of his "wife" (?) when he had no wife, Defendant 
Cranfill was trying to secure through Mr. Kirby testimony to 
corroborate the Clark schedule. Defendant Cranfill went by 
night to Mr. Kirby and undertook to employ him to go down 
into "The Reservation" and secure witnesses to confirm the Clark 
scheme. He told Mr. Kirby that he need not stand upon the 
cost, that "any amount of money would be furnished him for 
the service, both for himself and witnesses." To those who 
know the high character of Mr. Kirby, it were superfluous to 
state here that he rejected Defendant Cranfill's proposition with 
scorn. Mr. Kirby is a member of the Robertson, Kirby and Smith 
real estate firm, 255 Main street, Dallas, and enjoys the confi- 
dence of all who know him as an upright citizen and an honor- 
able gentleman 
Carroll, J. B. Gambrell, G. W. Truett, R. C. Buckner and others 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 207 

were trying to cover up Defendant Cranfill's monstrosities on the 
ground that they did it in their zeal "to advance the organized 
work and to promote the Redeemer's kingdom." In everything 
they took Defendant Cranfill's explanation and denial, no matter 
how strong the proof. It was freely said by Board Party parti- 
sans that the only "mis"fortune about the shots of Cranfill in 
the wash room of the sleeper, was that they "missed" Hayden. 

Such dastardly conduct as this is not common. Pretonius, 
the celebrated voluptuary at the court of Nero, who had every 
opportunity of studying the condition of anger, declared: "As 
the plow turns the snow and mixes it with the earth, so education 
refines anger and excludes cruelty." This was his observation. 
It is a notable fact that not one of the Defendants could, in the 
high sense, be called educated. There was not a truly learned 
man among them. Education does not exclude anger and hate, 
but it so tones the mind as to make this form of passion seem 
unseemly. Nothing could beguile Drs. Brooks, Newman or any 
other thoroughly educated man into a conspiracy. Nor any ordi- 
nary motive prompt it in the uneducated. It grows from com- 
plex and deep causes. 

At the risk of pedantry Seneca, is here quoted: Hoc habent 
pessimum animi magna fortuna in solentes; quos laeserunt et 
oderunt. "Those minds whom fortune hath made insolent have 
this bad quality that those whom they wrong they hate." And 
from Tacitus: Proprium humani ingenii est, odisse quern laeseris. 
"It is the property of human nature to hate whom we injure." 
Seneca expresses the fact: It is so. Tacitus gives the reason: 
It is human nature. 

So also Virgil; Tantaene animis coelestibus irae?" Which 
Milton phrases: "In heavenly spirits could such perverseness 
dwell?" In other words, were they spirit-guided? More com- 
monly, we forgive those who injure us, but those whom we in- 
jure, we forgive not. The gospel of repentance only reverses 
this, for true repentance seeks to make restitution. 

And oh, there is a fountain opened in the house of David for 
sin and uncleanliness ! 



208 THE COMPLETE 

CHAPTER XIX. 
PISTOL PRACTICE. 

On the morning of May 12, 1904, at about 6 o'clock, I arose 
from lower berth 8 on the Cotton Belt sleeper, en route to the 
Southern Baptist Convention at Nashville, Tenn. My wife and 
our little five-year-old daughter were with me. Our berth was 
near the middle of the car. The berth opposite was up when I 
rose and the section empty. The sections behind and before this 
section opposite my berth were down and the middle section 
afforded a convenient room for me to dress in. I stepped into 
it and dressed, leaving only my neck scarf, fastened by a pin, 
unadjusted. Starting to the wash room, Rev. J. J. Kellam, pastor 
of the First Baptist Church, Oak Cliff, who sat two or three sec- 
tions back, said to me laughingly: "Cranfill is just ahead of 
you." I replied: "Well, I saw him pass, but did not recognize 
him. I suppose I will recognize him in the wash room," or 
words to that effect. 

When I entered the wash room I saw Cranfill in the southeast 
corner of the room as the train moved eastward, but he did not 
seem to see me. I passed to the west and rear end of the car, 
entered the wash room and went to the last washbowl 
on the north side. Two men were at or near the other 
two washbowls. I stuck my scarf pin in the curtain over the 
washbowl and was about to begin to wash my hands. I did not 
know when these other gentlemen went out, paying no atten- 
tion to any one, as we were nearing Texarkana. I had not begun 
to wash my hands and face when Defendant Cranfill, from behind 
and diagonally at the remotest part of the wash room from me, 
began: "There is no one in here now but you and me, and if it 
were not for my self-respect, I would kill you. And if you ever 

print or mention my name again, I will kill you, ," following 

here with the foulest, coarsest language my ear ever heard. I 
paid no more attention to it than if I had not heard it. If any 
one had been looking at me he would have thought I was a deaf 
mute. These foul words he repeated over and over again, using 



C N S V I It A O Y TRIAL 



209 




210 



THE COMPLETE 



the same threats: "If it were net fox my sel^espect^I-woiild kill 
you, etc." I had no dream of his having a pistol, although Dr. 
J. H. Luther had told me, and several others had written me, 
that Cranfill had threatened for years past to "take a shotgun, 
come to Dallas and blow my brains out." But I had no dream of 
his intending it. I thought he would vent his feelings and go 
out. Waiting for this, I killed time adjusting my scarf, leaving 
the pin still in the curtain before me. Finding I ignored him, 
he left his place in the southeast corner of the washing room, 
crossed to the northwest corner, and came within about three or 
four feet, to the right and east of me. This brought him between 
me and the door leading back into the sleeping apartments of 
the car. As he came near me his voice grew more violent, 
while he repeated the foul language he began with, varying it 
only in form. His voice showing agitation and seeing by a side 

Automatic Colt Pistol 

MILITARY MODEL, CALIBRE .45, 




Full Metal Patched Bunet. 

Calibre .45 Rimless, Smokeless. 

The action of this pistol is automatic except that the trigger must 
be pulled to fire each shot. The arm can be discharged at the rate of 
5 shots per second, the cartridges being automatically supplied from a 
detachable magazine inserted in the handle of the pistol. 

After the pistol is charged with a filled magazine, one opening 
movement is made by hand, bringing the first cartridge into the 
chamber. On pulling the trigger the cartridge is fired, the empty 
shell is ejected, and a new cartridge loaded into the chamber, all these 
operations take place automatically without any manipulation of the 

arm. This automatic operation of the pistol is effected by the recoil of the moving parts, and as a . 
recoil is so absoi bed in being utilized that it has not the usual disturbing effect. 

In order to take the pistol apart press the Take Down Plug (in front under the barrel) until the slide Jock i 
out from the left side. The slide may then be drawn rearward entirely from the receiver. 

In this model the slide remains open after firing the last cartridge. When reloading the arm in this poslHoa, 
insert the m»gazlne, then press downward the slide stop (to the rear of the trigger as illustrated.) The slide go©* 
forward inserting a cartridge without any movement of the slide by hand. The slide stop is operated by the thua» 
of the hand holding the pistol. _ 

CAPACITY OF MAGAZINE. 7 Shote. WEIGHT. S2J* ounce*. FINISH. Full Blued. Checked Walnut StocAa, 
LENGTH OF BARREL. 6 inches. LENGTH OVER ALL. « inches. 

THE MOST POWERFUL SMALL ARM EVER PRODUCED. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 



211 




212 THE COMPLETE 

glance that he had something in his hand, I turned my head 
without turning my body and saw a pistol in his right hand and 
a sachel opened in his left, the pistol over the mouth of the sachel 
and at the moment seemingly pointing toward me. I snatched 
at it and with my right hand seized it by the barrel, grasping 
his collar or throat (I can not say which) with my left hand and 
threw the barrel up instantly. As I threw it up and pushed him 
backwards, he fired, the ball entering the rounded ceiling on 
the north side of the car. From boyhood I was endowed with 
marvelously quick action. 

By examining the cut it will be seen as described in the last 
line, but one that the "slide stop" is operated by "the thumb of 
the hand holding the pistol." The slide stop is shown in the 
cut between the impression of the screw at the top of the maga- 
zine and another screw above the trigger. The white place is 
the "slide stop." The thumb must reach up and pull it down 
before the pistol can be fired. Hence the magazine pistol never 
goes off "accidentally in a scuffle." It requires the intellect and 
will of man to make it go off. The circumstances all show that 
Defendant Cranfill had a perfect knowledge of the pistol and that 
his son Tom knew that he had a knowledge of it when he told 
Mr. Ragsdale, the Cotton Belt railroad agent, that the news from 
Texarkana that Cranfill had shot at Hayden twice and missed 
him "certainly was a mistake, since his father was a good shot." 
It showed that the matter had been fully deliberated; that De- 
fendant Cranfill had practiced with the pistol and that he had 
slipped that "slide stop" down so as to make the pistol go off. 
It does not appear whether he had pulled the "slide stop" down 
when he held it at the back of his victim before the pistol was 
seized, or whether he pulled the slide slot down afterwards; but 
it is manifest that he had pulled it down with a view of shooting, 
for he fired it twice. 

The instrument is the deadliest weapon that human ingenuity 
ever devised. It is made to concentrate all the chances of death. 
Death suddenly or death by slow degrees. The bullet is ex- 
pansive and tears a hole in the flesh the size of a half dollar, 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 



2V6 




214 THE COMPLETE 

so that to miss a vital part and yet hit at all, secures the ultimate 
death of the victim; for it will hit at least some member of the 
victim's body in any scuffle. It discharges 7 shots at the rate 
of 5 shots per second. It is a rare thing that this weapon is 
used without a coffin. 

As up to the moment of my seizure of his weapon my back 
was towards him I could not have left the room without facing 
him. Had I turned to go out by him he would have had a fair 
shot at my full front. Having seized the pistol barrel with my 
right hand, I pushed him back with my left till his legs struck 
the seat which crossed the wash room. I crowded him back its 
whole length from north to south, as the car moved east. Cranfill 
is said to weigh, or did then, 240 pounds. But staggering back- 
ward till his legs struck the transverse seat mentioned, he mov- 
ing southward along the seat. I followed him up back to the 
point where he first stood when I went in, he still trying to turn 
the muzzle of his pistol on me, and I grasping it in my right 
hand keeping the muzzle up. Reaching the south wall of the 
wash room he gave a lurch, bringing his back now to the west- 
ward. Here his legs again struck a short seat three or four feet 
long which backed against the closet. By this time I had press- 
ed him backward against the closet wall and he fired a second 
time, my right hand pushing the* muzzle upward, the bullet pass- 
ing through the cornice of the closet and entering the ceiling. 
He was now down, his back on the seat, his head towards the 
north and seemingly exhausted on this short seat against the 
closet, my right hand still grasping the pistol barrel, my left hand 
grappling his collar or throat. I noticed now that both his hands 
clasped the magazine end of the pistol. I tried to wrench it from 
his grasp, but in vain. Without endeavoring to rise, he just lay 
gripping the pistol, magazine end, with both his hands. The cart- 
ridges, I learned afterwards, were charged with smokeless pow- 
der. Cranfill afterwards described the weapon as a "rapid fire 
magazine gun." Holding him down on the seat, my right and 
left hand engaged as stated, my left knee was resting on his 
stomach. He seemed almost breathless from exhaustion and un- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 



215 




216 THE COMPLETE 

nerved by fear. I heard the screams of my wife in the sleeper in 
front. But as there were pantry rooms of several feet between 
us, I could not speak to her, telling her I was alive. The men 
in the sleeper held her from running to me and Rev. J. J. Kellam, 
as he states, came to the door, looked in, saw the posture of the 
two men, and rushed back through the cars to call the conductor, 
remembering that conductors, under the law, are officers. The 
conductor was three cars forward taking up tickets. All this 
while I held the pistol barrel, Cranfill holding the magazine end 
in both hands tightly as by a death clutch, which, strive with all 
my might as I did, I could not wrench from him. My wife, held 
by a kindly gentleman whose name I have never learned, but 
whom I here heartily thank, was finally permitted to come to the 
door and I saw Cranfill's eyes, as he lay on his back, move that 
way. Looking, I saw who it was and said: "Go back, Jean. lam 
all right." Seeing Cranfill's death clutch on the pistol, I then 
made a supreme effort to wrench it from his hands. His heavy 
weight of 240 pounds and his passive posture, gave his whole 
strength to his hands, while I was compelled to hold my grasf> 
of his throat with my left hand, with only my right hand on the 
pistol. But he seemed to fear I would get it away from him, 
and began: "Let me up and I won't bother you any more." This 
he repeated perhaps twice without reply from me. Desiring to 
get the pistol and thinking he might fear I would use it on him, 1 
at last said: "I am going to have this pistol, but I am not going 
to hurt you with it. Let go of it." In the most beseeching tone 
he said: "Please let me up, and I pledge you my honor I will not 
bother you any more." I replied: "You haven't any honor, you 
coward." He seemed to feel less in danger, and replied: "You're 
a liar." At this juncture the conductor and three or four other 
men came in and tried to wrench the pistol out of our hands. As 
my hand covered the barrel and Cranfill's hands covered the 
magazine end they could get no hold on it. The conductor said 
to me: "If you will let me take your hold on it I will be able 
to force it out of his hands and will take it from him." All join- 
ed the conductor in this request. I then gave them the barrel. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 



217 




218 THE COMPLETE 

One of the men gently pressed my shoulder toward the door and 
I returned to the sleeper, .finding my wife and child frantic with 
fear. The little five-year-old girl, I was told, had been running 
up and down the aisle of the car just as her frightened little 
form had come from the sleeping berth, crying, "Oh, oh, oh!"' 
But I had not heard it. I heard only my wife's screams, but 
was not, till she looked in, able to give her the comforting as- 
surance that I was alive and uninjured. By this time the car 
stopped in the station at Texarkana. In company with J. J. 
Kellam I got off the car, and meeting the clerk of the Cosmopol- 
itan Hotel, at his door, and asking for an officer, he pointed out 
a Deputy Sheriff a block away. By a rapid walk we came to him 
in less than a minute, and he hastened to the train to arrest 
Cranfill. But Cranfill had gone. The conductor informed me 
that as soon as I left the wash room they let Cranfill up and he 
immediately dropped the pistol into his sachel and latched it, 
saying that it was "his property." Had Cranfill not been beside 
himself from the excitement of an intended murder, he could have 
claimed, as his friends did for him later, that it was not his pis- 
tol, but mine. But his statement to the conductor cut him off 
from this refuge. He had acknowledged it was his pistol and 
locked it up in his satchel. When the Deputy Sheriff reached 
the car as stated, cranfill was gone. He had hastily left the 
car and had crossed the State line into Arkansas. The Deputy 
having no jurisdiction out of Texas, hastened to an Arkansas 
officer and Cranfill was arrested in the Huckins House on the 
Arkansas side. He requested the officers to let him go to the 
Texas side, where he was placed under $1000 bond. He im- 
mediately gave his version to The Texarkanian, an afternoon 
newspaper, and to the Associated Press, which went to the sec- 
ular papers throughout the country. 

His friends, I learned, admonished him, when too late, that 
this "statement" was damaging to him, and he hastened to try 
to recall it. The Texarkanian allowed him to modify it in that 
paper, but it had gone to all the dailies in other cities and in 
them it appeared as originally written by him, as follows. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 219 

Cranfjll's Statement. 

"It is my disposition to give a full statement of the matter, 
but upon advice of my attorney I refrain from doing so. In all 
good conscience, I can say that I have violated no law, human 
or divine. In all the annoyances to which I have been sub- 
jected by S. A. Hayden, and they are without number, covering 
a perior of more than twelve years, the only attitude that I 
have assumed has been one of self-defense. When all of the 
facts concerning the incident of this morning have been brought 
I have no doubt but that I will be fully vindicated from any 
blame whatsoever. I have not sought to avoid any process of 
law in the matter and I ask the public to suspend judgment 
until all thef acts are judicially presented." 

Being shown this statement by The Texarkana reporter, I 
made the following statement. 

"I never carried a pistol in my life. I did not know Mr 
Cranfill was in the dressing-room of the sleeper until after 1 
started to go in to make my toilet. I saw him as I went in, but 
passed to the washbowl on the far side without speaking to or 
noticing him. 

After all the other gentlemen present had finished their toilets 
and left the room, I heard Cranfill's voice in my rear, violently 
abusing me, to which I made no reply, preferring to ignore him. 
He repeated his abuse and I turned in time to see him with 
his hand in his grip, from which he drew his pistol. 

I exclaimed, 'Is that a pistol you have?'*and he immediately 
presented it toward me with violent language. 

I seized the pistol by the barrel with my right hand and 
threw it up, and it fired over my head. I pressed him backward 
across the room, and he fired again while I was doing so. 

I finally got him down on the seat on his back and held him 
down, both of us grasping the pistol until other parties came 
in and induced me to release him. 

I was wholly unarmed and anticipating no trouble — had no 
intention to hurt him even with his own pistol, but only to 
prevent him from shooting me. The matter is now before the 
proper tribunal of law." 

Cranfill, having given bond of $1000, took the Iron Mountain 
train for Memphis, continuing his journey to the Southern Baptist 
Convention at Nashville. With Rev. J. J. Kellam I went back 



220 THE COMPLETE 

to the sleeper which had been moved down to the yards two miles 
below Tearkana, and recovered my scarf pin, which the porter 
had saved for me. 

Here is Cranfill's statement circulated privately and spread 
by his friends several weeks later: 

"All that I did was to act on the defensive. The thing that 1 
regret most was that I had a pistol in my grip. The history of 
that is this: The night I left home my family were away and I 
took supper with my son. He has thought ever since Hayden's 
son held me and one of his crowd knocked me down 
with a loaded cane, that my life was in danger. He told me 
the evening I was leaving that he was going to put a pistol in 
my grip. I forbade him to do so. But, however, on opening the 
grip the next morning the first thing I saw was the pistol on the 
top of everything else. I had not been in the dressing room but 
a few minutes when Hayden came in. I did not notice him at 
all. But when all the other men left the room he began mutter- 
ing something and began to advance toward me, with something 
in his upraised right hand. I see very poorly at best, and did 
not have my glasses and could not see what he had in his hand, 
and do not yet know. Instinctively I reached for the pistol and 
told him not to come at me. But he immediately rushed on me, 
and in the scuffle which ensued the pistol which was an automatic 
fire gun was accidentally discharged twice. I did not fire at him 
at all, but when he found that I had a pistol lie tried to turn it 
on me and kill me. I could have killed him at any time during the 
scuffle, but when I found that he was powerless to harm me, I 
did not try to harm him. This is a brief statement of facts. 
J. B. Cranfill." 

Those who circulated this version of Cranfill's explained the 
whole thing. From a written statement of one of them, Dr. A. 
J. Holt, the following is extracted: 

"The events leading up to the affair on the train were: 

1. The decision of the Supreme Court in the Conspiracy Trial 
case. (It is characteristic of Board Party testimony to get en- 
snared by their own statements. The shooting took place at 6 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 221 

a. m. on May 12. The decision of the Supreme Court was not 
made till 12 m. the same day.) 

2. The effort of Hayden and Dr. Graves to have Cranfill in- 
dicted before the Federal Grand Jury, the Grand Jury unani- 
mously refusing to find a true bill, etc. The further effort of 
Hayden to have Cranfill indicted before the Civil Grand Jury." 
"Dr. Craves utterly failed to put Cranfill behind the bars." 
"A few of Hayden's friends were at the Convention. They 
seemed in high glee, etc." A. J. HOLT. 

Death Was the Aim. 

Thus the pistol was, according to Cranfill's own statement, his 
"Rapid Fire Automatic Magazine Gun." It is the most deadly 
weapon known to the ingenius deviser of deadly weapons. A 32 
caliber ball is devised with a point which expands at the dis 
charge and tears a hole in the flesh the diameter of a half dollar 
lacerating in the most fearful manner so that, unlike the ordi 
nary leaden bullet, which cuts its own size only, this ingenius 
death device insures death from laceration whether it pene- 
trates a vital organ or not. The flesh from the perforation made 
by the expanding bullet is so lacerated that inflammation or 
blood poisoning accomplishes its deadly purpose by a slower 
agony than a vital shot. The weapon was invented to insure 
death whether penetrating a vital part or not. 

Everything had been carefully planned in advance, the day, 
or rather the night, the train, the very sleeper, the pistol, the 
plea, "self defense," the front shot rather than the back, all had 
been premediated with the precision of murder. It will be no- 
ticed that Defendant Cranfill says that the "pistol went off in 
the scuffle while Hayden was trying to take it from me to kill me." 
A more fatal admission could not have been made. This "Automat- 
ic Rapid Fire Magazine Gun" does not "accidentally discharge" in 
a "scuffle." It is made to go off by design and cannot "discharge" 
except by the design of the holder. For it has a "Safety" thumb 
piece which has to be slipped down by the thumb before it be- 
comes automatic! No amount of "scuffle" will make it "dis- 



222 



THE COMPLETE 




CONSPIRACY TRIAL 223 

charge" except the holder first slips that little thumb slot out in 
order to fire. Then to touch the trigger insures the deadly dis- 
charge. Even the older patterns of this deadly automatic rapid 
fire gun have to be cocked before the fire can begin, while this 
latter model must be made ready by this thumb slot before it can 
be made to go off. Hence the statement that it was accidentally 
discharged in the "scuffle" while I was trying to take it from 
him in order to kill him is an automatic statement conclusively 
convicting the possessor of the pistol of intentional murder on 
the one hand and of an invention to escape on the other. That 
safety thumb slot does not move but by intention. It cannot be 
touched in a "scuffle" except by the automatic murder motion 
of the thumb of him who has it. 

The Wisdom of the Politician. 

At 5 p. m., with my wife, child, J. J. Kellain and his wife, I 
left over the Cotton Belt for Memphis, continuing our journey to 
Nashville to the Southern Baptist Convention. At Memphis we 
boarded the East Tennessee, Chattanooga and St. Louis train for 
Nashville. Cranfill took the same train, but on a different coach 
from mine. At Nashville J. B. Gambrell and B. J. Robert met 
Cranfill and escorted him to a hotel. They refused, I learn, to 
let him be interviewed, but gave out disconnected statements for 
him very injurious to him from their lack of coherence or con- 
sistency. The Nashville American and the Nashville Banner 
each asked an interview of me Friday morning at the Tabernacle, 
the Convention meeting place, and I gave them a copy of my 
statement made at Texarkana. The next morning, before day- 
light, Defendant Gambrell urged Defendant Cranfill to the train 
and he returned to Dallas. I doubt very much whether any one 
understood the purport and intent of this hasty retreat of Cran- 
Ull. To state the denouement at once; it hastened the retire- 
ment of Cranfill from the Standard, previously, as I learned re- 
liably, purposed by G. W. Carroll, who owned the larger moiety 
of the stock of that paper and put Defendant Gambrell prac- 
tically in. 



224 THE COMPLETE 

Cranfill, in his written statement, professed to have been as- 
saulted by me in the sleeper, that "he had violated no law, human 
or divine," and that it was his misfortune to have been assailed 
and not his fault. Had this been true it would at least have miti- 
gated Cranfill's attempt to kill. Defendant Gambrell, while hur- 
rying Cranfill away from the Convention to which he was an ac- 
credited messenger by appointment of the Convention Board, 
gave his enforced departure the semblance at least of an ab- 
sconding criminal who could not face his fellow messengers 
in the Convention. Defending him, Defendant Gambrell forced 
him to fly. Why, if he had been "assaulted," as he and Defendant 
Gambrell claimed, he should have staid among his friends, and 
at least lent his presence to the support of his innocent misfor- 
tune alike before friends and foes. But Defendant Gambrell 
found a sword to cut the Gordian knot and that sword was flight. 
He had a long time wanted to retire Cranfill from his paper. 
There was no consistency between Gambrell's pushing Cranfill in 
the night back home, and Gambrell's plea that Cranfill was the 
innocent victim of misfortune. J. H. Gambrell, brother of De- 
fendant Gambrell, who had some months before become Cran- 
fill's associate editor, now succeeded Cranfill on the tripod, and 
nominally, if not actually, became the editor of the Baptist 
Standard. J. B. Gambrell reasoned wisely, but did not argue 
well. Cranfill was forced off the Standard as by the besom 
of public sentiment, J. H. Gambrell became nominally editor 
with his brother, J. B., as mentor and editor in fact. If Cranfill 
had remained at Nashville as I did, it would, prima facie, at 
least, have vouched for the good faith of his version of the affair. 
His friends could have had the matter of his avowed innocence, 
if real, helped by the manner of it. His imprisonment in his 
room by the advice of Defendant Gambrelland his hasty retreat 
from Nashville, conceded, prima facie, his guilt and left the tri- 
pod, the goal for months in view, vacant. I confess, this double 
treatment of an attempted assassination had in it for me a touch 
of pathos. Defendant Cranfill's Church met and vindicated him 
from all blame. That is, he secured the appointment of a commit- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 225 

tee consisting of leading Board Party partisans, and they reported 
that "he was blameless and justifiable" in all that he did in the 
pistol practice episode! Out of a Church of over a thousand 
members, as claimed, I learned reliably, only a few, possibly six 
or eight, voted to adopt the report. And it went on the records of 
the First Baptist Church of Dallas that "J. B. Cranfill had vio- 
lated neither the law of God nor of man" in that magazine pistol 
practice in the sleeping car wash room, May 12, 1904! 

Statements from Dr. John Hill Luther, now deceased, Dr. J. 
F. Duncan, of Waco; Dr. A. B. Vaughan of LaGrange, Ga.; Rev. 
J. R. Hodges and others, have been mentioned elsewhere, one 
will suffice for all: 
"Rev. S. A. Hayden, Dallas, Texas: 

My dear Brother — When at the San Antonio Convention I ap- 
proached Dr. Cranfill one day in the Spirit of a Christian, feeling 
a great interest in the Master's cause. I said to him, "If you 
brethren would take gospel steps this trouble could be settled." 
His reply was, "I would rather take a shotgun and shoot Hayden 
than do as you suggest." I told him that I thought Hayden would 
be reasonble. "Yes, but," he said, "he has lied on me." This 
conversation took place in front of Bro. Harris' Church. I am 
grieved to know of the condition of affairs in dear old Texas, but 
I am glad to know that truth and right are asserting themselves. 
All you have to do is to persist. The Board Party can not carry 
much longer. 

They were very much damaged in the last .Trial. May God 
help the right, and I believe that your cause is ordered of the 
Lord. Fraternally, 

J. S. DAUGHERTY. 
At the meeting of the Grand Jury of Bowie County, Texas, 
in September, 1904, I went before it to secure an indictment. 
Cranfill had been seen in the company of some of the Grand 
Jury. Judge Turner gave the Grand Jury a comprehensive charge, 
pointing out the impropriety of men under accusations, interview- 
ing members of the Grand Jury personally! The Charge did 
everything but call Cranfill's name. Cranfill had retained sev- 



226 THE COMPLETE 

eral able law firms, among them Judge McLean of Fort Worth, 
formerly Judge of the Texarkana Judicial District and attorney 
formerly of one of the Grand Jurors who had himself been in- 
dicted. The result was that the vote of the Grand Jury was seven 
for a true bill and five against, including the juror interviewed by 
Cranfill and the Negro on the Jury. 

Later, the Confession of Judgment by Defendant Cranfill and 
the acquiescence of all the other defendants barred a further 
prosecution of the Cranfill pistol practice case, as society general- 
ly felt, and I with them, that such a Confession of Judgment by 
the Defendants closed the temple of justice against further liti- 
gation. 

The Confession of Judgment. 

This Confession of Judgment by Cranfill had more than one 
feature, not the least of which was the pistol episode. He had 
for years repeatedly threatened to "take a shotgun and blow S. A. 
Hayden's brains out." It was the concession of the attorneys on 
both sides that if the Plaintiff was put out of the way in the Con- 
spiracy trials the Defendants would go free. The Plaintiff only 
had those dreaded "Documents." He only had in mind the testi- 
mony of deceased witnesses on both sides of the damaging testi- 
mony of the Defendants against themselves in former trials and, 
he only could reproduce it. They had unwittingly made damag- 
ing concessions in the first trials that they were under neces- 
sity of modifying in subsequent trials. With the Plaintiff dead, 
this conflict in the testimony of the Defendants against them- 
selves was measurably out of the way. The testimony of the 
whole case in one mind naturally made it desirable on their part 
to get rid of it. With this statement of the case true, here fol- 
lows the raison d'etre of the attempted assassination: 

1. J. B. Cranfill learned from Mr. A. K. Ragsdale, the ticket 
agent of the Cotton Belt at Dallas, that S. A. Hayden was going 
on the Cotton Belt sleeper that night. 

2. Cranfill went to Fort Worth and boarded the train, giving 
as his reason that he could get to bed in the sleeper earlier at 
Fort Worth than at Dallas. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 227 

3. But the ticket agent urged Cranfill to go by the T. & P., 
over which he had transportation, giving as a reason that the re- 
lations between the two men rendered it proper that he should 
go another way equally convenient. 

4. Cranfill took with him a rapid fire magazine pistol with 
which he shot twice at S. A. Hayden in the wash room of the 
sleeper. 

5. The fact that he took the pistol (which he claimed his 
son thrust upon him) and used it in the sleeper, is conclusive of 
intent to kill. The pistol could not go off in a scuffle as has 
been shown. 

6. Cranfill's son gave it out the day after Cranfill left Dallas 
and the day after the shooting took place, that he was not 
surprised to hear of the shooting of Defendant, his father, show- 
ing that he knew Cranfill had carried his pistol! 

7. T. E. Cranfill, son of J. B. Cranfill, got word from Gen. 
M. M. Crane, attorney for Cranfill, in the afternoon of May 12, 
more than six hours after the shooting, that the Supreme Court 
had reversed S. A. Hayden's judgment, and T. E. Cranfill, son 
of J. B. Cranfill, went to the Dallas agent of the Cotton Belt to 
learn where 'he might reach his father by wire with the good 
news. The ticket agent told him that his father was in Texar- 
kana, and gave him an account of the shooting as he had learned 
it by wire. When told that his father had shot at S. A. Hayden 
twice, but had missed him, T. E. Cranfill said: "I hardly see 
how Father could miss him. He is a good shot," or words to that 
effect. This showed that J. B. Cranfill had, in the estimation 
of his son, acquired skill with a pistol. 

That the shooting was premeditated will appear more cer- 
tainly from the following: 

The day Cranfill and Hayden left Dallas, May 11, a murder 
case was on trial in Dallas. The pistol used by the homicide 
was a duplicate of the pistol Cranfill used, a smokeless powder 
Colt's automatic rapid fire magazine gun. The killing in Dallas 
was not witnessed by any one. The killed man was shot while 
in his chair in his own office, found dead in his chair at his des"fe, 



228 THE COMPLETE 

holding his pen in his right hand. The two men were foes. And 
yet as there was nothing to refute the statements of the man 
who had done the killing, the opinion prevailed the day we 
left, May 11, that he would be acquitted. And he was acquitted. 
Cranfill's statement that his pistol, which he said his son had 
forced upon him, was "on top of the other things in his satchel," 
admitting that it was the most accessible article in his sachel, 
speaks for itself. His aproach from the oposite side of the room 
to a position forcing me to face him to go out shows that he 
plapned for a shot in the breast and not in the back. In that 
case his defense was assured. He could say it was not his pistol 
but mine, that I was trying to shoot him, that in the scuffle he 
seized the pistol and diverting the bullet from his own breast, 
it entered mine; that he was very sorry indeed! He had medi- 
tated this. His first utterance after his arrest was the plea of 
"self defense." His later private statement was, "S. A. Hayden 
was rushing on him with something in his hand (his defective 
vision could not discern exactly what) and he instinctively seized 
the pistol which lay in his satchel on top of everything else." 
That he intended murder will further appear from the. following 
witnesses: 

1. Dr. John Hill Luther warned me that he had heard Cran- 
fill threaten to kill me. As Dr. Luther is dead I would not quote 
him, but for other witnesses living. 

2. Dr. James F. Duncan of Waco, Texas, says that in Jan- 
uary, 1897, he acted as proxy for J. J. Felder, a member of the 
Board of Directors of the Baptist State Convention, and that 
during the meeting of the Board at Waco he heard Cranfill 
threaten to kill me. 

3. Rev. J. S. Daugherty, now of St. Louis, says that in No- 
vember, 1897, at the San Antonio Convention, he heard Cranfill 
threaten to kill me. 

4. Rev. J. R. Hodges says that he heard Cranfill threaten to 
kill me. All these witnesses would have been on the stand at 
the next Conspiracy Trial. Hence the Confession of Judgment. 
But at the time I thought this all bluster until when alone with 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 229 

tUrn in the washroom, I saw the pistol in his right hand, the 
muzzle presented at me! Then I changed my opinion! The two 
shots removed all doubt from my mind! 

Men say Defendant Cranfill or some of the Defendants will 
murder me yet. Well, what if they do. They cannot murder the 
principles for which contention is made. Then the danger is 
less now than ever. The state of public feeling in Dallas espe- 
cially, and in Texas generally, is such that changes of venue 
would do them very little good unless they should go out of the 
State. And there is nothing for them even then. 



It is glory enough to have shouted the name 
Of the living God in the teeth of an army of foes; 
To have thrown all prudence and forethought away 
And for once to have followed the call of the soul 
Out into the danger of darkness, of ruin and death. 
To have counseled with right, not success, for once, 
Is glory enough. 

It is glory enough 
To have marched alone before the seats of the scornful,. 
Their fingers and money all pointing your way; 
To have felt and wholly forgotten the branding-iron of their 

oaths, twenty to one; 
To have stood up firm and reliant on only your soul 
And go calmly on with your duty — is glory enough. 

It is glory enough to have taken the perilous risk 
Instead of investing in salaries and supplements; 

To have fitted a cruiser for right to adventure a sea full of 

shoals; 
To sail without chart and with only the stars for a guide; 
To have dared to lose, with all the chances for losing, 
Is glory enough. 

It is glory enough 
To have dreamed the bright dream of the reign of right; 
To have fastened your faith like a flag to that immaterial staff 
And have marched away, forgetting your base of supplies, find- 
ing God at the end, 

Is glory enough. 



230 THE COMPLETE 

CHAPTER XX 
THE DEVELOPING PROCESSES OF CONSPIRACY. 

The Chief Lesson of This Book Comes Only by Repetition. 

It has been a puzzle to many people how it could be that so 
many men and ministers could be found who would really per- 
jure themselves, which they did in the estimation of jurors and 
spectators generally. In solving this puzzle let the following 
truisms be noted: 

1. When men enter a conspiracy or commit other penal of' 
fence, the first, the sure impulse is to deny it. And the mor« 
prominent the men the stronger the impulse. 

2. The penal nature of their conduct was not realized by 
them at the time. They did not distinguish between those sing 
which are against the law and those that are not. The law- 
maker, it has been said, provides against crime, the gospel, 
against sin. They had some distorted idea of the Gospel but 
not of the Law. There were lawyers among them and they told 
the Defendants at the time they were arranging caucuses for th« 
perpetration of the offense against the statutes, that there was 
"no danger." ' The Defendants were notified of their danger by 
Dr. Burleson and others at the very time they were committing 
the crime. But their legal accomplices told them they need fear 
nothing and urged them to go ahead. 

3. They were emboldened by the fact that they were many, 
with almost unlimited money, and entrenching themselves be- 
hind the "organized work," they carried with them the arma- 
ture of loyalty to missions by the Churches and the Baptist peo- 
ple generally. They claimed that "any criticism of them was 
an assault on the organized work." The Plaintiff, on the other 
hand, was only one and absolutely without means. They were 
therefore, as they thought, immune, against the penalty of the 
law. Defendant G. W. Truett boasted that there were "twenty 
Defendants who would swear against the one Plaintiff, and 
what could one witness do against twenty?" 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 231 

4. They were further graduated towards perjury by the legal 
plea of "not guilty." Having made this plea all the swearing 
must be towards this. They being Defendants, were not "under 
rule" as were all the witnesses for Plaintiff, and whatever one 
swore the next sought to swear, which fact propagated itself 
through all to the last Defendant. 

5. As stated elsewhere, the attorneys for Defendant called 
them into a room at the Windsor Hotel and outlined to them the 
plan of defense as: 

(1) General Denial — Deny everything and put the burden of 
proof on Plaintiff. 

(2) Privilege — Members of Churches, lodges, conventions, all 
parliamentary bodies, have the right to act out their honest con- 
victions under their own rules. Every member entering these 
bodies subscribes to these rules when he enters the organization 
Mistakes, where good faith without malice is exercised, are ex- 
empt from responsibility. Otherwise Churches could no-t disci- 
pline their members except as each member of his own knowl- 
edge understood the nature of the charges. That is what in 
law is known as "Privilege." As a member of the body he has 
the privilege of exercising his honest judgment, doing the best 
he can for his order. But he must do it for the good of the order 
without malice towards anyone. If he has malice in what he 
does, if "he seeks to cloak his malice behind the rules of his 
order" he forfeits his "privilege" and must account to the courts 
for his crime. Hence everyone swore that "he had no malice.' 1 
He was too pious to hate. And no doubt some thought this 
false plea would shield the^n. But no matter, it was easily shown 
they were in Conspiracy, as all the seven judges, in their writ- 
ten opinions, clearly so stated, viz.: The trial judge i. e., the 
Judge of the District Court, the three judges of the Court of 
Civil Appeals, and the three Supreme Judges, all of whom con- 
curred in the fact that there was Conspiracy. That was too 
patent for difference of opinion or doubt. The Defendants, there- 
fore, all hastened to say as soon as they got on the witness 
stand, that they acted without malice. 



232 THE COMPLETE 

(3) The third plea was justification by the Truth. Of course 
this required them to swear they believed that "every word of 
the Challenge was true." And that necessitated proof. This 
necessity forced them to sweaP falsely. It was as pitiable a 
condition and as embarrassing a position as any set of men ever 
got into, as the sequel shows. Perhaps no more helpless a sit- 
uation ever confronted thirty defendants. With unlimited means, 
with the advantages of official position, with universal senti- 
ment among court people and outsiders in Dallas at the out- 
set, with all the ramifications of social and religious surround- 
ings, the results of the trial were, it might be said, unprecedent- 
ed. The result came largely from the inconsistency of sin. 

1. In the first Case the libelous Challenge, itself concocted 
in heated conspiracy, clandestinely written, as it was afterward 
confessed, under oath, was so extravagant as to put the Defend- 
ants at a great disadvantage. At the beginning the Defendants 
were instructed by their attorneys that if they voted for the 
Challenge not believing it to be true; if they entered into a con- 
spiracy, or if they were actuated by malice, the law convicted 
them. Their dilemma was that if they swore they "believed the 
Challenge true" or that if they were "without malice," or that 
they did "not enter into a conspiracy," why then disproof of any 
or all of their sworn statements would react on them with the 
jury and discount their testimony. In point of fact, the terms of 
the Challenge were such as could be true only of the Arch 
Author of all evil. They even pleaded that the Plaintiff was 
"worse than Judas in that while Judas, after his crime, went 
and hanged himself, the Plaintiff brought suit against the work- 
ers." No man has ever lived, Iscariot not excepted, as bad as 
the Challenge described the Plaintiff to be. To swear that "they 
believed every word of the Challenge to be true," greatly em- 
barrassd them. Attorney L. J. Truett, for the Defendants, em- 
bodied forcibly this truth when, as already quoted, he declared 
to the jury: "If you give Dr. Hayden one cent of damages you 
will, by your verdict, say that every Defendant who has been on 
the witness stand has deliberatel sworn falsely." For every one 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 233 

had sworn himself innocent. It is conservative to say that the 
conclusion was reached by Court, counsel, jury and spectators, 
that every Defendant who went on the stand committed either 
legal or moral perjury, or both. They were led into it under the 
stress of the law. They had pleaded "not guilty." That bound 
them. They hesitated at no inconsistency. Their testimony was 
confused, even chaotic, although premeditated and "deliberate." 
As Defendants, they could not be put under rule. Each heard 
what the others swore, and each thereby was drawn into false 
swearing by force of circumstances even where he would not 
have voluntarily committed such a crime. But men in a com- 
mon defense are prone to support each other even at the sacrifice 
of reputation, self-respect and conscience itself. This charitable 
view will not apply to all the Defendants, notably J. B. Gam- 
brell, J. B. Cranfill, B. H. Carroll, C. C. Slaughter, A. E. Baten, 
and some others. But it applies too others of the Defendants. 

2. In the second place, the incredibility of the conspiracy 
was heightened by the Defendants' pleadings. The defense open- 
ed their case by anchoring at the start upon publications in The 
Texas Baptist Herald, covering almost entirely its issues of the 
last ten years, even going back to its publications twenty years 
ago. This gave the Plaintiff a fortunate citadel of defense. For 
almost every publication made in the paper had been based upon 
documentary evidence authenticated by the Defendants them- 
selves. Hence where 10 or 20 of the Defendants swore against 
the Plaintiff, the introduction of the Defendants' written or 
printed documents made the conclusions of proof all the more 
easy and impressive. To illustrate, in a given instance common 
to almost every Defendant, Defendant A. E. Baten swore on the 
witness stand that "S. A. Hayden had written him two letters 
which justified the language of the Challenge." He was required, 
under law, to produce the letters or else to show that "the let- 
ters had been destroyed." Defendant Baten, who had evidently 
been instructed, promptly swore that both the letters were "de- 
stroyed," which last sworn statement may have been, and per- 
haps was, believed by him to be true. Then he was interrogated 



234 THE COMPLETE 

as to the contents of the letters. They were, indeed, had his 
oath been true, very damaging to Defendant. Had S. A. Hayden 
written such things as Defendant Baten swore to, it would have 
non-suited him. The letters dated back to 1894. By a strange 
coincidence, both the letters sworn by Defendant Baten to have 
been "destroyed" were in the hands of the Plaintiff. Defendant 
Baten had answered one of these two letters in his own hand- 
writing on the blank part of paper on which the original was 
written, and returned it to S. A. Hayden, so that its identification 
was absolute, for it was in Defendant Baten's handwriting. The 
contents of this letter contradicted explicitly Defendant Baten's 
sworn statement. Of the seco-nd letter a carbon copy, which in 
law, is an original, was also produced, which also contradicted 
Defendant Baten's oath. The embarrassment of Defendant 
Baten and indeed of all the Defendants, was pathetic. Another 
instance: The Challenge declared that "the accounts of J. B. 
Cranfill had been examined, passed upon and found correct at 
Marshall in 1894." Whereas J. B. Cranfill himself, when asked 
to state under oath why he had not made his report until 1896, 
swore that his "books had been lost from April, 1892, till No- 
vember, 1896." Of course, they could not have been "passed upon 
and found correct at Marshall in 1894." But every Defendant, 
including Defendant Cranfill himself, swore that "every word of 
the Challenge was true," when a part of that Challenge was that 
"the accounts had been passed upon and found correct at Mar- 
shall in 1894," at the very time when they were "lost." 

These are only samples of the continual embarrassments of 
the Defendants on the witness stand from the opening to the 
close of the Trials. The speeches of the attorneys for the Plaint- 
iff alleging that they had "heard more false swearing by the 
Defendants during the Trial than they had ever heard before on 
any trial in their lives," although to those at a distance who 
read it seemingly severe, were nevertheless declared to be true 
by jurors and spectators alike. I am not without the disposition 
of charity in the premises. Temptations to false swearing were 
peculiarly strong. Before the Trial commenced the Defendants 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL &35 

held several conferences at the First Baptist Church at Dallai 
and again in General Crane's room in the Windsor Hotel, in 
which they were instructed that the line of defense would he 
"denial of conspiracy and malice, and belief of the truth of every 
word of the Challenge." Defendant Geo. W. Truett stated to a 
prominent minister on a railroad train that "twenty preachers 
would go on the witness stand and swear to the same thing, 
contradicting the statements of Plaintiff." This, by way of 
showing the futility of the suit as resting upon the oath of only 
one man, the Plaintiff. No one man in the truth, however hum- 
ble, need fear the influence of numbers if he will only stand his 
ground. 



O God, most merciful and kind, 
The principles that are behind, 
Mere tunings, not thy keynotes set 
For making manhood's perfect paeans yet, 
Help us forget, help us forget. 

The sins of youth, the unclean word, 
The things that sudden anger stirred, 
The jest unseemly — all the debt 
And sin that thou hast promised to forget, 
Help us forget, help us forget. 

The words of slanderous men, the taunt 
That slings and stings as demons haunt 
The soul, and into fury fret — 
Things we forgave ere we could pardon get, 
Help us forget, help us forget. 



236 THE COMPLETE 

CHAPTER XXI. 
TWO THINGS INCREDIBLE. 

But why was the battle so long — seven years? A Sabbatic 
litigation? There must be a cause. The Defendants were en 
abled to resist, for the time, the omnipotence of facts, from thei! 
incredible nature. There are some things so incredible as to 
require more than proof. They require realization. And reali- 
zation comes only with the time element of truth. 

The incredibility of this Conspiracy was increased by two 
considerations. First, such a Conspiracy had never been charged 
in any court before. That fact gives special value to the Con- 
fession of Judgment by all the Defendants, stronger immeasur- 
ably than a jury verdict, since the verdict is by the Defendants 
themselves. The conservatism of the human mind naturally 
and properly resists the acceptance of anything never known 
before. To the inhabitants of the Tropics, the crystallization of 
water into ice is not only improbable and unreasonable, but 
seemingly impossible, because to them never proven by observa- 
tion or experience. To the Icelander, the phenomenon of crys- 
tallized water by the legerdemain of Nature is too common- 
place even for attention. Crystallization of earth and iron are 
commonplace to the denizens of the Tropics, but not water. 
Conspiracies among train wreckers, bank robbers, burglars, etc., 
cause no wonder. Their business implies it and makes it not 
only reasonable but to be expected. But among Ministers of the 
Gospel, whoever heard of a Conspiracy to "down a man," to 
"crush" a fellow being? It is as unreasonable and incredible 
as that bandits should organize a law and order society, or 
that a body of train wreckers should contribute funds to Pin- 
kerton's Detectives. It is in violent conflict, not only with the 
exactions of society at large, but with the most solemn relig- 
ious duty, with the Church Covenant, with the ministerial ordina- 
tion and with the common dictate of humanity. 

No one who has not experienced it can realize the unutter- 
able anguish that the concoction and publication, in the pres- 
ence of an immense assembly, can bring to a human heart. 
Burning at the stake were an ecstacy compared with it. It 



CONSPIRAOY TRIAL 237 

were a Life Mission worthy of any man to spend every remain- 
ing breath of existence endeavoring to remove from his charac- 
ter the stain of such a libel. Nothing but reflection that time 
at last shall be no more and eternity will come, can assuage the 

overflowing waters of such an otherwise consuming sorrow. 

I wrote at once and published in The Texas Baptist, Novem- 
ber 11, 1897, my unutterable heartache. 

The mind of the believer must in such an ordeal adjourn 
all things to the Future World — "Time gone, the righteous 
saved, the wicked damned and God's eternal government ap- 
proved." 

Let it be repeated as it will never be denied, that men should 
conspire to inflict such torture, is incredible on its face. And 
yet this human cruelty has ever been the trademark of all fanati- 
cism and false religion. It is the spirit of the carnal, common 
to fallen humanity, white-robed in the garb of religion. On 
Aaron's Ephod, "ardent with gems oracular," were twelve pre- 
cious stones, emblematical of the regenerating Spirit of God 
in converted souls, through whose Urim and Thummim were com- 
municated to the Redeemed "messages full of Divinity." But in 
that same bosom, as Paul said, was the "carnal man," warring 
against the "spiritual man," revealing Satanic darkness as the 
precious stones of the Ephod reflected divine light. So when- 
ever and wherever carnal nature has seized the Breastplate and 
the Cross, it has always ended in Conspiracy, Torture and Death. 
More suffering has been irflicted upon the human race under 
the guise of religion than from all other causes combined. It 
is the highest tribute Satan gives the Cross that he assumes its 
sanctity and dons the Robes of Righteousness to do his direst 
deeds. But in life, the incredible ever is found hard by the 
incredible in Salvation. The Crucifiixion of Christ, Who came 
to save men, is the most incredible record of history. The Inqui- 
sition is incredible! The mad fanaticism of the Crusades in 
which millions of men, women and children lost their lives to 
rescue an empty sepulcher, while dishonoring its risen Occu- 



838 THE COMPLETE 

pant, is incredible! It took centuries to discount these pious, 
priestly, preposterous things, because they were done under the 
shining robes of Heaven — "For the Redeemer's kingdom." What 
wonder that it took seven years, with one hundred and eighty 
days — full six months— in the Temple of Justice, under the man- 
agement of the ablest lawyers on both sides, with the whole 
history of the whole case developed, with every article having 
the remotest bearing upon the issue rummaged, ransacked, read 
and discussed from the Plaintiff's newspaper, going back fully 
twenty years — what wonder, I say, that it took so long to over- 
come in full the incredibility of the truth and the incredulity 
of a considerate and charitable public! 

The incredible thing, after all, is that one man, without 
money to pay even notarial fees, with popular local sentiment at 
the beginning, except those who knew, unanimously distrusting 
his pleadings, with millions of money against him, with the 
"Organized Work" erected like a barricade to resist and hide 
the truth, with the helpless Orphan Children, like the kinsfolk 
of the beseiged at Londonderry, placed between the battle lines 
for the protection of the Defendants; with the precautions of 
jurisprudence making possible each dilatory postponement; with 
the Defendants exhausting every means of delay against the 
Plaintiff pressing for investigation; with a gauntlet of safe- 
guards centuries long for the protection of all Defendants; witb 
the righteous motto of the law that it were "better that ninety 
nine guilty Conspirators to go free than that one innocent De- 
fendant should be convicted;" with the just charges of the Court 
that "no matter whether a syllable of the fierce allegations in 
the Challenge were true, if the Defendants adopted it from a 
sense of duty and without malice, believing it to be true, they 
must be acquitted;" with the sworn statement of every De- 
fendant that he believed "every word of the Challenge to be 
true;" that he was absolutely without the least emotion of 
"malice;" that he acted purely from a sense of "Christian duty," 
in order to promote "the Redeemer's kingdom;" with the testi- 
mony of all the Defendants against the simple statement of the 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 239 

Plaintiff and the impression upon the jury and upon the people at 
the beginning in favor of the Defendants in all equitable cir- 
cumstances; with large sums of money used freely in bribery; 
with the real author of the Conspiracy, Defendant B. H. Car- 
roll, pleading the Statute of Limitations; with wholesale per- 
jury; with all these things, what thing so difficult of belief, so 
incredible beyond all probability was the verdict of four juries; 
the opinion of eleven judges, and the practically unanimous sen- 
timent of society! L. J. Truett, Esq., one of the attorneys for 
the Defendants, in his speech before the jury, said: "If, gentle- 
men of the jury, you give Dr. Hayden one cent of damages you 
will, by your verdict, say that erery Defendant who has been on 
the witness stand has deliberately sworn falsely." The Supreme 
Court of Civil Appeals confirmed this statement of Defendants' 
attorney by saying: "There was room for the jury, under the 
testimony offered, to have acquitted the Defendants," meaning 
thereby that as Mr. Truett said, had the jury believed the testi- 
mony of the score of Defendants, they would have acquitted 
them! And yet four juries of twelve men each — forty-eight in 
all — except two men in the second jury, and three in the third, 
which division is known to have been procured by bribery, unani- 
mously declared, so says Mr. Truett, that "every Defendant who 
has been on the witness stand has deliberately sworn falsely!" 
So here we have two incredible things: First, that Ministers 
of the Gospel and other Church Members wearing the Baptist 
name should have conspired to "down," to "crush" a fellow 
being! And, second, that with all the armature of money, men 
and methods, they should have been convicted! This is a still 
more incredible thing than the Conspiracy itself. Both of these 
incredibilities have been proven beyond doubt. So in religion 
as in life, the most incredible things are often the truest. Thus 
by the confession of all, the incredible is confessedly the true. 

An Incredible Retrospect. 

Plaintiff is accounting for the incredible. Are the pictures 
and statements in the foregoing overdrawn? So far from it, It 



MO THE COMPLETE 

ts beyond the power of tongue or pen to portray the alarming 
condition of things at the beginning of this suit. Let us see: 

No sooner had the Plaintiff filed his Petition than he was ar- 
rested by the Defendants, dragged into the Court House and 
charged with "Contempt of Court," under the plea that the pub- 
lication of the Petition charging the Defendants with Conspiracy 
and Libel to "down," to "crush" him was the "obstruction of 
the administration of justice." The secular papers, loaded by 
the Defendants, teemed with accounts of the "arrest of S. A. 
Hay den" Comments pitiful, direful, mournful, were indulged 
in by the unsuspecting Baptist press. From sheer invention and 
in some instances, for fun, the wildest publications were sent 
forth. Plaintiff had neither the time, the influence nor the 
money to meet these wild statements even with denial. Thfc 
Defendants, with millions of money, hastened systematically tc 
seize the fountains of publicity — the Associate Press Agents and 
the unsuspecting Agents of newspapers — and sent out their 
gruesome dispatches. . The Dallas Times-Herald, prompted by 
Defendants, said honestly, believing it true: 

"A warrant was immediately issued for him (Havden) to 
appear and show cause why he should not be dealt with for con- 
tempt, and the case was set for yesterday; but the Sheriff made 
a return that he could not find Hayden. The Judge then reset 
the case for this morning, when the Sheriff again stated that 
Hayden was out of town. Thereupon the Judge set the case 
for next Monday. In the meantime the Sheriff will make dili- 
gent search for the Defendant." — Dallas Times-Herald, July 15, 
1898. 

"The Judge set the case for next Monday. Meauwhile the 
Sheriff will make diligent search for the editor. The police 
throughout the State have been requested to assist in appre- 
hending the Rev. Mr. Hayden." — St. Louis Republic, July 15, 
1898. 

"BAPTIST EDITOR A FUGITIVE. 






All Texas City and County Officers Ordered to Look for Rev- 
erend Hayden. 



Dallas, Texas, July 14. — The Rev, S. A. Hayden, editor of 
The Texas Baptist Herald has brought suit 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 241 

for $100,000 against the Rev. J. B. Cranfill and other Baptists 
of prominence connected with the publication of the Baptist 
Standard, a rival of Rev. Hayden's paper. 

About three weeks ago Judge Gray granted the Defendants 
an injunction restraining Rev. Hayden from publishing in his 
paper the pleadings in the case, or in any way to comment in 
his paper on the case. Judge Gray also held that Rev. Hayden 
was in contempt of Court because of what he had already print- 
ed concerning the case, but suspended judgment. 

Rev. Hayden disregarded the injunction, and in his latest 
issue of the Texas Baptist and Herald, printed more of the plead- 
ings and more of his caustic comments thereon. Judge Gray 
yesterday started the Sheriff out with a warrant for the Rev 
Hayden, with the intention of putting him in jail for contempt, 
hut the Sheriff could not find the preacher. Judge Gray started 
him out again today. Once more the Sheriff was unsuccessful. 

Jadge Gray's instructions to the Sheriff now are to keep on 
hunting till he finds his man. The Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police 
throughout Texas have been notified to assist. Thus far none of 
them have struck Rev. Hayden's trail. No bloodhounds are being 
used." — St. Louis Globe-Democrat, July 15, 1898. 

These were taken up and commented on by the religious press, 
thus: 

"Having failed in his efforts to dominate or disrupt the Texas 
Baptist State Convention, Rev. S. A. Hayden instituted suit for 
heavy damages against prominent Texas Baptists, and he claimed 
that by their conduct toward him they made enormous inroads 
upon his reputation and business interests. In elaborate docu- 
ments, technical and denunciatory, he filed his complaint in 
the District Court. The Defendants made answer in due form; 
thereupon Dr. Hayden published in The Texas Baptist and Herald 
all of these papers, together with criticisms upon them and 
prejudgments of the case by quite a number of supporters. For 
this attempt, construed by the Court as an impediment to a 
fair trial, he was adjudged guilty of contempt of Court and ord- 
ered under a stayed penalty to desist. Thereupon he printed 
this latter decree of the Court and repeated the offense from 
such publications. Under date of July 14, telegraphic dispatches 
from Dallas announced that the Judge had issued a warrant for 
his (Hayden's) arrest for further Contempt and put it in the 
hands of the Sheriff for execution. After two days' search the 
officer has failed to locate the editor. Chiefs of Police through- 
out the State have been notified and pursuit is to be prosecuted 



24:2 THE COMPLETE 

with vigor. The way of the disintegrator is hard. Our obser- 
vation is that when a man starts out to quarrel with his breth- 
ren, nine times out of ten he will soon come to quarrel with 
God and righteousness. Disturbers may find it possible to sit 
down now and then on a State or National Convention of relig- 
The Texas Baptist and Herald, printed in this city, has a damage 
suit pending in the Forty-fourth Judicial District Court of Dallas 
icus people, but the experiment of sitting down on a United States 
Court is usually attended with some inconvenience." — Central 
Baptist, St. Louis, Mo., July 22, 1898. 

The editor of this paper, Dr. J. C. Armstrong, although inform- 
ed of the untruth of these weird and wildly sensational state- 
ments, has not seen proper to correct them to this day. The 
most that he could be coaxed to say by way of correction was that 
"S. A. Hayden denied the truth of the statements," as if all 
criminals do not enter the plea of not guilty! 

With all this, to have reached a demonstration of the right 
eousness of the suit, even by a Confessed Judgment of all the 
Defendants, is by universal consent one of the wonders of mod- 
ern Jurisprudence. Meantime poverty oppressed at home; de- 
spair seized most of the faithful, the purpose to "crush Hayden" 
was to the Defendants practically accomplished, and the breth- 
ren who seemed to feel all was lost (with some noble exceptions) 
bade us Godspeed, withheld their subscriptions due The Herald 
and prepared to announced my death, heroic, though inevitable. 

But God saw; grace sustained hope and bolstered an heredi- 
tary trait which my mother gave me, and the noble Judge who 
had been misled by false Relators, called the case in Court, 
made a thorough inquisition into the case and declaring the 
Respondent, S. A. Hayden, "not in contempt of Court," assessed 
the costs against the Relator, J. B. Cranfill. But this has never 
been published in the Baptist papers in the Old States. 



CONSPIRAOY TRIAL 243 

CHAPTER XXII. 

THE BRIBERY CASES, 

Ed Cornwell was employed by Attorney G. G. Wright to help 
the Defendants on the Third Trial. This was admitted under oath 
by Cornwell. Ed Cornwell was for years Assistant Chief of Po- 
lice of the City of Dallas. Later he opened a Detective Office in 
Dallas. He afterwards became a candidate for Sheriff of Dallas 
County. Jake Sitton lived in the northwest part of Dallas County 
at a place called Sowers. He once held the office of Constable. 
Sitton supported Cornwell in his candidacy for Sheriff, and it is 
said he was to have been one of Cornwell's Deputies, had he 
been elected. Juror Will Seale lived also at Sowers. Cornwell 
had been employed in the interest of Defendants from the start. 
Just previous to the call of the Third Trial, Cornwell visited the 
Sheriff's office, and tried to get a list of the jurors. But the 
Sheriff refused to let him have the list. The object manifestly 
was bribery, even before the trial. One man could hang the jury. 
Conspiracy had been clearly proven on former trials. There was 
no escape now but by bribery. $2,000,000 was pledged to "Down 
Hayden." 

Pending the trial, one Sunday, June 1, G. G. Wright, attorney 
for Defendant C. C. Slaughter, visited Ed Cornwell's detective 
office, corner Main and Field Streets, entering from the side door 
on Field Street, not from the front entrance on Main Street. That 
afternoon Ed Cornwell drove out fourteen miles to Jake Sitton's. 
The next morning, Monday, June 2, Deputy Sheriff Allen Seale, 
brother of juror Will Seale, received an anonymous note, say- 
ing: 

"Ed Cornwell was out to see Jake Sitton yesterday afternoon. 
He told Jake that he had already 'three of the jurors bribed, and 
wanted three more, and wanted Will." 

The letter was dropped into the Sheriff's box in the court 
house, without stamp or postmark. Nothing was said to Juror 
Seale about this anonymous note. After court adjourned for 



244 THE COMPLETE 

dinner that day, Jake Sitton approached Juror Will Seale, told 
him that there "was $100 on a table in an envelope in a Detect- 
ive office, which $100 Sitton would divide with Seale, if Seale 
would hang the jury. Seale reported it to the Sheriff, and the 
Sheriff to the court. The Sheriff was instructed to watch and 
investigate the case. The following Saturday there was a picnic 
at Sowers, and it being a holiday, court adjourned, and Juror 
Seale, a neighbor of Jake Sitton, attended the picnic. There was 
a dance at night. It was arranged to -put witnesses at a certain 
place, to procure, as required by law, corroborative testimony. 
Witnesses were placed by the Sheriff at a designated spot, to 
overhear Jake Sitton and Juror Seale, who had been talking it 
now for a week. At the appointed time, Saturday night, the 
Sheriff with his witnesses, Sitton and Juror Seale, were brought 
close together by concerted action of the Sheriff, Sitton being 
unaware of the contiguity of the witnesses, it being dark. The 
following week Sitton was arrested, tried for Contempt of Court, 
imprisoned with Cullom, and subsequently was indicted by the 
Grand Jury. 

It will be noticed that attempt to bribe is a two-fold crime; 
first, Contempt of Court, and, second, a Felony. Both H. E. 
Cullom and Jake Sitton were convicted of Contempt of Court, 
fined $100 each and imprisoned in the county jail for three days. 
Sitton paid his fine and remained in jail three days, was re- 
leased and indicted by the Grand Jury for the crime of Bribery. 
At the first call of his case it was "continued." At the second 
call of his case it was again "continued" by Defendant Sitton 
died. Of course, that closed the case. H. B. Cullom could not 
be present. Before the case was finally brought to bar, Sitton 
died. Of course, that closed the case. H. E. Cullom could not 
pay his $100 fine, and so lay in jail for several weeks, as no one 
would pay it for him. He was a lawyer, the partner of J. B. 
Cranfill in Beaumont Oil lands and the failure of every citizen 
in Dallas and out of the legal profession to help him pay hla 
fine as he was known to be without means of his own, was the 
test of public feeling. As an act of mercy, he was by Plaintiff 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 245 

S. A. Hayden's attorneys finally released from jail. J. B. Cran- 
fill dare not help lest he acknowledge his connection with his 
attempt to bribe. Cullom being a lawyer, he had so managed 
his attempt to bribe and had so avoided the efforts made to 
bring him under the technicalities required by the Statute on 
Bribery, that no attempt was made to indict him by the Grand 
Jury. After it became known that Cullom and Sitton were 
making attempts to bribe the jury, plans were laid by the Sheriff 
to secure corroborative evidence against both of them. It was 
arranged by the Sheriff that witnesses were to be placed where 
the bribers could be heard. But Cullom, being a lawyer, knew 
how to avoid the corroborating testimony. Sitton knew nothing 
of the technicalities, made his proposals where they could be 
heard by witnesses, and so became indicted under the law. 

In the case of Juror W. F. Morris, who accepted a bribe in 
the interest of Defendants, no knowledge of it came to the Plain- 
tiff, the Sheriff or the Court until after the close of the trial, 
when, through fear of indictment, A. W. Morris, Juror Morris' 
father, who was accessory to the bribe, turned State's evidence, 
hoping his son would do the same. Under the Texas Statute 
the testimony of an accessory is not admissible against a briber 
without corroborative testimony, although A. W. Morris' state- 
ment is known to be true. And so Cullom, Wright, Cornwell and 
all connected with the bribery of W. F. Morris and the attempt 
to .bribe Juror W. W. Melton escaped indictment. Poor Sitton, 
a blacksmith, was the only one caught. 

The attempted bribery by Jake Sitton under Ed Cornwell iK 
the employment of Attorney G. G. Wright, was attended by some 
sensational circumstances, the details of which are interesting 
both as to the ingenious methods employed to bribe and the 
detection of them, and are worth repeating. When Sitton ap- 
proached Juror Seale he told him that as "it was a fight between 
preachers for money, we (Sitton and Seale) might as well get 
it." Sitton detailed to Seale the method of getting it, saying that 
by "going to a detective's office, an envelope would be found, 
properly addressed, with the money in it; that a boy would bft 



246 THE COMPLETE 

in the office who knew nothing of the matter, guarding the monej 
till Sitton came for it and then would deliver it to him." 

Saturday, June 1, there was, as stated, a picnic at Sowers, 
fourteen miles northwest of Dallas, and a Deputy Sheriff accompa- 
nied Juror Seale to the grounds. The picnic was followed at night 
by a ball under a shed built for the purpose. There was a park 
near the pavilion. On one side of the park was a bois d' arc 
hedge, dividing the park from a cornfield. Witnesses were placed 
in the cornfield, near the hedge, where, secreting themselves, 
they awaited the coming, on the park side of the hedge, of Juror 
Seale and Jake Sitton. A cornstalk cut down during the day 
had been placed to mark the spot on the cornfield side for the 
witnesses. The witnesses, desiring to catch every word and fail- 
ing in some, struck a match to see if they were by the cornstalk. 
This revealed to Sitton that he had been trapped. Sitton was im- 
mediately arrested for Contempt of Court, deferring his indict- 
ment till the meeting of the Grand Jury. When Sitton was tried 
for "Contempt of Court," for talking to a juror against the orders 
of the Court, Cornwell was asked whether G. G. Wright had not 
visited his office on Sunday. He swore that he had not, although 
it was known that he had. Sitton wanted to turn State's evi- 
dence, which would have sent Ed Cornwell and G. G. Wright 
to the penitentiary. But his death ended this bribery case. 



Give love, and love to your life will flow, 
A strength in your utmost need. 
Have faith, and a score of hearts will show 
Their faith in your word and deed. 

Give truth and your gift will be paid in kind, 
And honor will honor meet; 
And a smile that is sweet will surely find 
A smile that is just as sweet. 

And the best will come back to you. 

For life is the mirror to king and slave, 

'Tis just what we are and do. 

Then give to the world the best you have 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 247 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

SENTIMENTS, LIKE SEASONS, BRING HARVESTS. 

This Conspiracy, as proven in Court, and now confessed by 
consent of all the Defendants, is unprecedented in Baptist history. 
Excepting only those who witnessed it, there was not a man in 
tne State, in the Baptist denomination or out of it, who, at 
the time the suit was entered, April, 1898, believed that the 
pleadings in the Petition were all, or any of them, true. The 
prejudice among the non-Baptist population of Dallas against the 
Plaintiff's plea in court at the time of the opening of the trial 
was, so far as noticed, practically universal. Some of the most 
prominent and influential Baptist preachers, laymen, lawyers, 
merchants, and politicians, were represented in the Petition to 
have "entered into a Conspiracy to destroy a Baptist preacher." 
The statement on its face was unthinkable. But the Plaintiff, 
through his attorneys, pressed a trial, never asking for a con- 
tinuance in any instance, while the Defendants exhausted evory 
possible means of delay that legal ingenuity could devise. Men 
reason from experience, and act on precedent. No religious 
organization among Baptists had ever furnished any such prece- 
dent. The specifications of the Petition were therefore, to all 
minds outside the case, whether Baptist or non-Baptist, beycnd 
reasonable belief. This was true of the empannelled jurors 
themselves, as they have since the trial frankly stated, over and 
over again. They say that while they were not biased against 
the Plaintiff in the least degree when they were impannelled, yet 
when they heard the Petition read, alleging that men standing 
high in religious, professional and commercial circles, including 
some of the wealthiest and most influential men in the State 
and in the ministry, had entered a secret, clandestine, plotted, 
planned, persistent agreement to ruin a fellow-man, they could 
not believe that the pleadings of the Petition, so explicit, ex- 



248 THE COMPLETE 

tended and severe, were in any essential particular true. Suffice 
it to say that every one of the 48 jurors in the four cases, ex- 
cepting two on the second trial and three on the third (some of 
whom were known to have been bribed), left the jury box with 
the thorough conviction that every solitary allegation in the 
Petition was proven to be true, while every solitary libel in the 
Challenge was proven to be untrue. 

Plaintiff's Petition Was Never Changed. 

The Petition originally filed was never modified in its alle- 
gations. It stands in the records of the Court without a solitary 
alteration. This, the most distinguished lawyers, not connected 
with the case, declare to be phenomenal in jurisprudence, forc- 
ing the conviction that the Plaintiff's Petition was absolutely :n 
good faith at the beginning, furnishing the unprecedented in- 
stance of a set of faultless allegations, resulting in the incontro- 
vertible proof of an incredible Conspiracy. 

Defendants' Answers Changed Repeatedly. 

On the ether hand, the Defendants presented every possible 
shift of self-contradictory pleadings, retreating to new ground 
on every trial, after exhausting every dilatory expedient. It is 
to witness the trials, the sentiment was only one way. And it U 
not too much to say that, so far as the public had opportunity 
closure of a plot of the darkest character, deliberately entered 
into, to use the language of Defendants, to "Cmsh Hayden ' 
The Confession of Judgment by Defendants now confirms this. 
How could such a Conspiracy like this enter the minds of sane 
men? 

There is no effect without a cause. The cause may often be 
out of sight, but there must be a cause for every effect. Unusual 
phenomena come from causes sometimes difficult to find. It is 
proper here to seek the cause or causes of this exceptional, but 
now proven and Confessed Conspiracy. It is a strange combina- 
tion of forces originating in invisible motives, but traceable and 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 249 

definable in each case, to a moral certainty, as follows: 

1. The State of Texas, imperial in extent and heterogeneous 
in population, furnishes an area for enterprises and results, good 
or had, practicable in no other State. Witness the consolida- 
tion of the most intensely competitive and rival Baptist Organi- 
zations, Universities and Papers, proposed in 1883 and consum- 
mated in 1886. The proposal, when made, was considered by 
the best intellects in Texas as visionary, impracticable and even 
impossible. Dr. Leslie Waggoner, the President of the Texas 
State University at Austin, the honored son-in-law of Dr. J. JVL 
Pendleton, my warm supporter and sympathizer till he died, 
deemed the consolidation of Baptist enterprises in Texas imprac- 
ticable, and cited Bethel and Georgetown Colleges in Kentucky 
as an illustration. Although covering perhaps only one-fifth the 
territory of Texas, yet these two institutions in Kentucky, he said, 
could never be brought together, although it was earnestly de- 
sired by many good men, and although the Kentucky Baptists 
had the advantage of one State-wide Baptist body, while Texas 
had two. But the heterogeneity of Texas Baptists, and the 
widely dispersed population, gave each Church and each Baptist 
a freer individuality and a less constrained autonomy, than was 
to be found in Kentucky or any other State where an older 
homogeneity obtained. In Kentucky and other States existed 
divided solidarities. Not so in Texas. The mobility, so to speak, 
of Baptists, exists nowhere else on earth as in Texas. Every 
Baptist brings hither with him the imprimatur of his old State, 
which preserves his individuality from the crystallized customs 
which he left behind him. The conflict with many sectional 
Baptist cults breaks up to some extent his former denomina- 
tional structure, and leaves him to his free choice. This makes 
things possible in Texas not practicable out of it. 

2. The existence of these diverse characteristics in the Bap- 
tist population in Texas, while making desirable results attain- 
aDle, give corresponding opportunities for party organization and 
selfish combination. Accordingly, in the early days, the strong, 
intellectual, enterprising men of Texas, zealous of the accomp- 



250 THE COMPLETE 

lishment of what each thought to be the best thing, drew around 
them followers, as magnets draw iron filings. The accretions 
to the enterprises set on foot by these magnetic men in the 
earlier and middle period of Texas Baptist history, gave rise to 
compactly organized rival organizations, schools and newspa- 
pers. 

3. When, therefore, consolidation of all Baptist interests was 
proposed in 1883, it naturally met with intense opposition from 
all these leaders. That compact Triumvirate in South Texas, 
Drs. Link, Law and Smith, who never cast a divided vote, met 
and matched by that almost equally compact Triumvirate in 
North Texas, Drs. Burleson, Carroll and Buckner were each 
married to their respective denominational enterprises, and op- 
posed consolidation with discreet but unfailing constancy. 

But the masses had never been worked into thoroughly dis- 
ciplined organizations around these men, and were, each and 
all, readily directed toward any desirable end. They all longed 
for unity. "The Unification of the Baptists of Texas" attracted 
their attention and guided their action along the denominational 
plains as Constantine's vision in the sky "In Hoc Signo Vinces" 
led his followers to battle. Or rather, the proposed "Unification" 
was to them as the Star which led the Wise Men to Bethlehem, 
where lay the new-born Prince of Peace. 

4. Men diverse of nature often become unitary in interests 
Dr. Burleson, be it said to his everlasting honor, although voting 
to the very last against consolidation of the Universities, accept- 
ed the result finally, with admirable magnanimity and genuine 
surrender of his views, to the will of his brethren. And with 
that new covenant he kept the faith until he fell a victim and a 
martyr to his own fidelity. I never saw a higher test of Chris- 
tian candor, consistency and heroism, than his tall form pictured 
to the eyes of all beholders, as he stood before the last session 
of the Baptist General Association of Texas, at Ennis, in 1881. 
where the vote was taken as to the Consolidation of the Univer^ 
sities on "condition that he should be Chancellor with adequaW 
salary for life," he alone voting "No." 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 251 

5. But there are diverse men, unitous in interest, various in 
motive. Men outvoted, come even to applaud their own defeat, 
while cherishing ill-concealed resentment, especially after the 
employment of unsuccessful means which they themselves can- 
not approve. In the conflict for the Unification of the Baptists 
of Texas, it became necessary at times to resist reprehensible 
devices which excitement and the exigencies of the occasion 
tempted men to employ. 

The force of the foregoing will appear more clearly when 
it is stated that, of the six men in the dual Triumvirate, every 
one except Dr. Burleson became disaffected toward the Plaintiff, 
who had met their opposition, both in denominational assem- 
blies and in print. They had all cherished plans which, be it 
granted, they had designed for the denominational good. The 
proposition for the Unification of the Baptists of Texas in 1883, 
they felt, had interfered with their cherished plans. And they, 
therefore, with the one exception named, felt a natural sense of 
having been wronged by an appeal to what they had been ac- 
customed to consider the unthinking people. The movement for 
the Unification of the Baptists of Texas had been contested more 
or less openly at the General Association, at Cleburne in 1883, 
quietly at Paris in 1884, and with sensational intensity at Ennis 
in 1885. Similarly, but less sensationally, had the influential 
Triumvirate in South Texas resented the movement in the State 
Convention meetings, the same years. When, therefore, the 
final consummation of Unification was reached in 1886, it was 
found that the opposition of both sides were united. I will not 
say that Herod and Pilate were that day made friends, for 
that would be uncharitable and unjust; but there was a demon- 
stration on that day of the truth of the saying, "A fellow-feeling 
makes us wondrous kind." 

6. By an inherited aggressiveness, while I had with me the 
ever-ready and never-failing assistance of Dr. S. J. Anderson, 
having pressed Unification over all opposition at every test, 
to the surprise of all, I had unintentionally "by that humor 
which my mother gave me," brought about, not only the Uni- 



252 THE COMPLETE 

flcation of the Baptists of Texas to my heart's delight and grati- 
tude to God, but I had also unified the opposition, to my cost. 
But by universal assent, unification of our people could not have 
been accomplished by any other known means than those em- 
ployed; to-wit, the open avowal of a purpose and a policy, and 
the steadfast advocacy of it without respect of persons. The 
blessed consummation was the echo of Christ's Sacerdotal prayer 
recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John. In such a blessed 
course as this, no personal inconvenience or loss should be con- 
sidered. It is barely worthy of mention, but I feel the conscious- 
ness and share the belief of the Baptists of Texas generally, in- 
cluding all parties, that I had, all unknown to myself, come to 
the kingdom for such a time as this. 



Because I hold it sinful to despond, 

And will not let the bitterness of life 

Blind me with burning- \fears, but look beyond 
Its tumult and its strife; 

Because I lift my head above the mist, 

Where the sun shines and the broad breezes blow, 
By every ray and every rainbow kissed 

That God's love doth bestow — 

Think you I find no bitterness at all, 

No burden to be borne, like Christian's pack? 

Think 3'ou there are no ready tears to fall 
Because I keep them back? 

Why should I hug life's ill with cold reserve 
To curse myself and all who love me? Nay! 

A thousand times more good than I deserve 
God gives me every day. 

And in each one of these rebellious tears, 

Kept bravely back, He makes a rainbow shine, 

Grateful, I take His slightest gift. No fears 
Nor tearblind doubts are mine. 

Dark skies must clear, and when the clouds are past, 
One golden day redeems a weary year. 

Patient I listen, sure that sweet at last 
Will sound His voice of cheer. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 253 

CHAPTER XXIV. 

THE TESTIMONY. 

For the intelligible understanding of persons out of Texas, 
it is explained here that Board Party and Church Party mean, not 
that the Board Party are opposed to Churches, or the Church 
Party opposed to Boards. But the distinction originated at San 
Antonio in 1897. Dr. W. H. Parks testified that he first used the 
expression there, and, so far as he knew, he was the author of 
it. The distinction arose out of the fact that Defendant B. H. 
Carroll published in the Baptist Standard, and repeated on va- 
rious occasions, "The Convention is as sovereign in its sphere as 
the Churches or the individual Christian conscience, are in their 
respective spheres." This announcement was made to justify 
the action of the Convention in expelling members on the parity 
that a local Church in expelling its members is acting in her 
sovereign right, or the individual Christian conscience in acting 
out its sovereign convictions. The Church Party claimed that 
the Churches had a right to choose their own messengers and the 
Convention had no right to say to the Churches which of their 
members they might and which they might not elect as their 
messengers ; that if a Church should elect criminals, disreputable 
or immoral men as messengers to the Convention, then the Con- 
vention might pronounce the Church irregular, as the constitu- 
tion provides, and refuse all her messengers. But the Conven- 
tion could not discriminate, and say some of the messengers from 
a given Church might be seated, and others not, except for ade- 
quate cause. 

Defendant B. H. Carroll had further proclaimed publicly that 
"The Board was the Convention ad interim." Thus, the Board 
was as sovereign as the Convention itself. And this for 360 
days in the year, the "sovereign" Convention existing only four 
or five days in the year. Thus, there came a conflict between 
the "Sovereignty" of the Board and the "Sovereignty" of the 
Churches. Hence arose the distinction, "Board Party" and 
"Church Party." The Church Party no more denied the rightful 
existence of the Board than the Board Party denied the rightful 



254 THE COMPLETE 

existence of the Churches. Board Party, therefore, means aa 
adherent to the claim that "The Board is a Sovereign body" for 
the whole State, while the. Church is a Sovereign body for iti 
immediate community. The Church Party means an adherent 
of the doctrine that the Churches are only sovereign under 
Christ, and that the Conventions and Boards are but commit- 
tees and sub-committees of the Churches. Board Party means 
the subordination of the Churches to the Sovereign Boards. 
Church Party means the subordination of the Conventions and 
Boards to the Sovereign Churches. 

The Baptists of Texas generally have had in the two Conspir- 
acy Trial Books preceding this, all the testimony. The First 
Conspiracy Trial Book reported it stenographically, word for 
word, from the opening to the close. The proceedings of tht 
Second Trial were not published in book form. On the Second 
and Third Trials, the testimony of Plaintiff's witnesses was 
identical with that of the First, while that of the Defendants va- 
ried from the Second Trial, as the Second did from the First. 
The Third Trial was published in book form, with the testimony 
compiled by an able lawyer from the notes of the court stenog^ 
rapher, exactly in the form required by the Supreme Court, giv- 
ing, in the case of each witness, the name, age, occupation, and 
every detail. 

In The Complete Conspiracy Trial Book, therefore, the testi- 
mony of both sides is given in substance, outlining the verbal 
fulness of the stenographers and the detail fulness of the law- 
yers. In presenting the testimony in brief, the deposition of 
Judge D. A. Harris, now Vice-President of the Baptist General 
Convention of Texas, Dr. R. C. Burleson, Plaintiff S. A. Hayden, 
Dr. J. G. Tanner (then pastor of the Presbyterian Church of 
Navasota, Texas), the admission of whose testimony, which re- 
ferred to Defendant Maxwell, who had died and who, therefore, 
could not be affected by the testimony designated as "Assignment 
1" became the ground of reversal in the last case. Defendants 
presented to the Supreme Court Forty-Nine Assignments of Er- 
ror, the testimony of Dr. J. G. Tanner, as before stated, being 
designated as Assignment 7. Dr. Tanner's testimony becomes all 



CONSPIEAOY TRIAL 255 

the more interesting because it was excluded, not from a lack 
of value of its probative character, but from the mere fact that 
Defendant Maxwell had died, and the Conspiracy, which was ad- 
mitted by the Supreme Court, was proven to have materialized 
in unquestionable form on Thursday and Friday nights, Novem- 
ber 3 and 4, 1897, while the conversation between Dr. Tanner 
and Defendant Maxwell took place on Tuesday, November 1, 
two days preceding the caucuses, Thursday evening and Friday 
night following. The Supreme Court, in their reversal, make this 
point clear, so that by the decision of this high tribunal the Con- 
spiracy was a proven fact. 

The reason the Supreme Court reversed, notwithstanding the 
proof of Conspiracy, was that Dr. Tanner's testimony as to de- 
ceased Defendant, two days before the San Antonio Conspiracy, 
might have made the penalty larger, it being $5,000 punitive dam- 
ages, the largest penal fine ever assessed against any one in 
Texas, and, perhaps, out of it. 

Lest it be omitted in the body of this Testimony, let it be 
repeated here, that every Defendant who testified denied Con- 
spiracy, Malice and Libel. Each claimed to have been "Guided 
by the Holy Spirit" in the Caucuses and in the entire proceed* 
ings at San Antonio. In general they all agreed; in details they 
were variant; and on all crucial points they were contradictory. 

Let it be further understood that the following Testimony, cov- 
ering four trials and fully 180 days in the Court House, is in- 
tended to comprehend faithfully all the Testimony in the four 
Trials, it being impracticable to report, word for word, the steno- 
graphic reports as in the First Trial. It would make a book as 
big as Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Sometimes witnesses 
for Plaintiff or Defendants cover ground already covered by pre- 
ceding and uncontroverted witnesses, in which case repetition is 
not necessary. The Waco (1898) Case was never tried. Some of 
the depositions will be given in full. Where all the witnesses 
have testified to the same thing, it will be mentioned in this 
report as applicable to each, that the Book may not be burdened 
with repetitions. 



256 THE COMPLETE 

Testimony fo Dr. H. W. Smith. 

Dr. H. W. Smith testified that he receipted Cranfill for $24 
dental work: "$12 donation and $12 in consideration of Cranfill's 
promise to pay for Smith $12 to the mission fund." 

Cranfill testified that he paid that dental account with a 
check for $12 in the Spring, and the other in the summer of 1892, 
by crediting Smith's ad in Mission Journal $7.50 and his own 
check for $4.50. (For fac simile of check, see cut.) 

Cranfill denies any shortage in the first six months of 1892. 



Defendant Cranfill Embezzles About $10,000.0 

Carroll's last six month to 1892 shows Cranfill's shortage was 
near $10,000. This $10,000 shortage is proven by a comparison 
of all the reports as published in the Minutes. 

Dr. Smith further testified that "At the Gainesville meeting in 
1893," 18 months after Cranfill went out of office, "on motion of 
J. M. Carroll," Cranfill's report for his last six months, from 
October, 1901, to April, 1902, "be passed to the new Board for 
lack of data." 



Defendant CrnnfilF* Expense Account. 

That Defendant Cranfill's "Expense Account" was not made up 
nor entered anywhere at the time the items are claimed to have 
been paid out, appears certain from the fact that the dates of 
entry are not in chronological succession, but skips are made 
from March back to January and February; from May back to 
January and April; from September back to July and August; 
from October back to September, etc., showing that these entries 
were made up as an offset to receipts from mission funds. This 
is proved by the Board Records, which say: "Expenses cannot be 
definitely ascertained, but said by Dr. Cranfill to be over $6,000." 
This in the following year after Secretary Holt's expenses are 
shown to be a little over "$3,000." 



Defendant Cranfill Lost His Missionaries Reports. 

Defendant Cranfill testified that he "lost the Reports of the 
Missionaries the last six months of his work," and that there- 
fore J. M. Carroll said at Belton, October, 1892, he "could not 
make a report on the full year's work of the Missionaries." J. M. 
Carroll testified and the books show that over $2,500 was placed 
in Defendant Cranfill's hands (after he resigned) to be paid to 
Missionaries. Cranfill therefore knew who were Missionaries and 
how much was paid to each. No receipts, vouchers or entries 
of any kind in writing concerning this $2,500 could be produced. 



Defendant Cranfill Pays His Dental Bill Out of . the Mission Fund. 

Dr. Smith testified that he made two subscriptions to State 
Missions under Defendant Cranfill's secretaryship, each for $10. 
Defendant Cranfill denies more than one. Dr. Smith testified that 
he paid Cranfill $10 on the street; that Cranfill was afterwards 
reminded of it and made memorandum on his cuff. Cranfill 
denied. Cranfill swore that he raid his dental bill of $12 after 
ne went out of the Mission work in 1892, $7.50 being credit on 
Dr Smith's advertising account in State Mission Journal, and 
balance of $4.50 in bank check. Smith denied and Cranfill pro- 
duced a check for $4.50 under date "October 19, 1891," nearly a 
year before to disprove Smith's statement. The lower left hand 
corner was torn off and Dr. Smith says that the $4.50 check was 
in 1891, and was a payment made for Rev. J. G. Kendall, City 
Missionary, Dr. Smith being "Collector," as his books show. (See 
check.) 

Defendant Cranfill Assaults Dr. Smith, and is Fined. 

Note.— Immediately after Dr. Smith's testimony was con- 
cluded, a short recess was given, and all retired to the hall. Dr. 
Smith, having gathered up his books, was passing through the 
hall, when Defendant Cranfill, in the presence of the Jury ran up 
to Dr. Smith and with his fist struck him twice. Dr. Smith, hav- 
ing his cane in his hand, gave Cranfill a blow on the head which 
felled him to the floor. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 257 

Dr. Smith Fell* Him With His Cain and is Acquitted. 

Defendant Cranfill's attack on Dr. Smith being- in the presence 
of the Jury, no false impression or influence was made. Next 
morning, Cranfill, in violation of the Court's oft-repeated charge 
to the jurors, asked one of them, "how it would affect the jury?" 
He was told that every juryman who saw it believed Dr. Smith 
served him right. 

Defendant Cranfill undertook to have Dr. Smith arrested for 
"assault with intent to murder." The Grand Jury found true bills 
against Cranfill and Smith and although Cranfill had offered to 
swear that Smith had "assaulted him with intent to murder," 
yet after his indictment by the Grand Jury, he went into Court, 
pleaded guilty and received the penalty of the law. 

Dr. Smith demanded a trial. After the testimony was in and 
arguments made by both sides, the jury retired and in about 
one minute returned with the verdict: "We, the Jury, find the 
defendant not guilty." 



Defendant Cranfill and the Farmersville Books. 

"Witness Pender testified that the Church at Farmersville, 
where he was pastor, had paid Defendant Cranfill $74.10, while 
his reports showed that he only credited Farmersville Church 
with $51.15, and that referring to this later, Defendant Cranfill 
said he "could pull the wool over the eyes of the brethren and 
they would never know it." 

Defendant Cranfill denied the statement in toto. 

Cranfill got the Farmersville books, took his lawyer, R. B. 
Allen, went to see Z. A. C. Harris, Clerk and Treasurer, and tried 
to get Mr. Harris to say his books were "wrong and did not mean 
"cash." 

Harris would not swear it. He said, "they might have been 
wrong." 



Defendant Hanks and Cranfill's Transcript. 

Defendant Hanks was Chairman o'f the Committee at Houston 
in 1896. Hanks had only a "transcript" before him and did not 
even properly "audit" that. He reported that he 'did, but he did 
not. He only added up the figures, debits and entries to see if 
they "balanced" (a thing already admitted) and compared the 
fraudulent vouchers with the credits. He refused to have the 
fraudulent entries in the accounts pointed out unless receipts 
were shown. This was the very point of complaint that Secretary 
Cranfill had received money, failed to give receipts, and put the 
money in hiw pocket without charging himself on his books with 
the amounts. 



Defendant Cranfill Caught With Plaintiff Hayden's Galley List. 

Defendant Cranfill testified that he got from Dr. Haj^den his 
galley list to use on Mission Journal, used it on that Journal, not 
on the Standard. 

W. T. Sanders testified that the Standard came to the Hearne 
postoffice addressed with a pen or pencil to the same subscribers 
that were taking The Texas Baptist Herald, but not the Stand- 
ard; that he opened and disfributed them in the postoffice. 

E. R. Logan testified: "I got the first issue of the Standard, 
compared it with the label on Dr. Hayden's paper which I had 
been taking for several year. It was identical, showing me in 
debt for subscription from 1890. The Standard began in 1892." 

J. B. McCraw testified that he was in charge of the Standard 
office at the time Cranfill bought it from Hanks. Saw galley list 
in Cranfill's hands, which Cranfill admitted was Dr. Hayden's 
galley list. At first Cranfill denied it all. But after it was proven 
beyond a doubt, he admitted it, but said "Hanks had given it to 
him." He knew it was stolen property, but has not returned it 
to this day. 

E. C. Overby testified that he had never used The Texas 
Baptist Herald list on the State Mission Journal but once, and 
then on "yellow paper." Afterwards Cranfill admitted to have 
used the Herald galley list once on "white paper." That was 
twice. Then Cranfill was found in possession of a third Texas 



258 THE COMPLETE 



Baptist Herald galley list which he said he got from Hanks when 

he bought him out. 

that he said Dr. Burleson must be removed, and Whittle and 

Defendant Cranfill said he did not think he voted for challenge. 

W. T. Sanders testified: "I saw Cranfill rise from his seat 
when the affirmative vote was called for. He turned and spoke 
to a brother near him and they had a laugh together." 



Defendant Cranfill Took Cash Collection at East Fork Association 
and Denied It. 

Defendant Cranfill testified that he did not take up any cash 
collection at East Fork Association, and did not take any bill 
from the collection and put it in his pocket. 

C. A. Ritchie testified that he saw him take up the collection, 
and saw him put a bill in his pocket and go out. 

J. T. Vance saw him take up the collection. Saw a $10 bill 
in his hand. Heard Cranfill say he would be one to contribute 
$10. Others either handed Cranfill the money or laid it on the 
table. Vance paid $5. 

S. L.. Yarrell testified that Cranfill fir^t took pledges; then took 
a $10 bill from his pocket, held it up before the people, propos- 
ing to be one to raise a cash collection. "I gave $5. I saw several 
others give. When he was through I saw him lay what he had 
collected on the table, and then turned around and put a bill in 
his vest pocket." 

E. T. Richie testified: I saw Cranfill take up the collection. 
He had a bill in his hand. Others paid in cash. 

T. C. Brantley, witness for Defendant Cranfill, testified that 
he came from Utah to Texas at a cost of over $200 paid by De- 
fendant Cranfill, on his letter and telegram; that in the Minutes 
of East Fork Baptist Association "Pledges meant promises to 
pay in future" — "Contributions meant cash." That no cash col- 
lection was taken up except $5.00 for Old Ministers. 

Yarrell, Vance, Starnes, Yates. Ritchie, all testified that they 
saw Cranfill take a cash collection and the Minutes show 14 
persons to have "contributed $5 each," making $70 "cash." 

Brantly denies discovering any shortage at the time, and de- 
nies mentioning it to Yarrell. 

Yarrell testifies that Brantly told him of the shortage of $10. 

Defendant Cranfill swore that his books were completed and 
balanced at the time he resigned, April 4, 1892. 



Defendant John T. Battle Convicts Defendant Cranfill. 

Jno. T. Battle, committee to audit Cranfill's books, testified 
that he visited Cranfill "several times" to examine his books, 
but never got to examine them until just before the Convention 
at Belton, in October, six months after he had resigned in April. 
"Defendant Cranfill's brother. T. E. Cranfill, was present." De- 
fendant Cranfill denied that J. T. Battle ever "visited him several 
times, once with T. E. Cranfill present." The conflict as to fact 
was absolute. 

Defendant Cranfill swore that Battle, his own witness, who 
said he could not get a settlement, was "confused." 

Battle could not have been "confused" when the Board rec- 
ords show that Cranfill had not reported in July, and did not 
pretend to report till October, 1892. 

Defendant B. H. Carroll Contradicted l>y J. L,. Whittle, A. M. 
Johnson and B. C. Burleson. 

The testimonv of Defendant B. H. Carroll is contradicted by 
the testimony of J. D. Whittle and A. M. Johnson; Whittle and 
Johnson affirming, and Carroll denying. 

R. C. Burleson testified that he was thoroughly allied with 
the Church Party. Defendant Carroll swore that "Dr. Burleson 
was never allied with the Church Party." 



Dr. B. C. Burleson Commends Plaintiff Havden and Condemns De- 
fendant B. H. Carroll. 

R. C. Burleson swore that "S. A. Hayden was in duty bound 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 259 

to publish the abuses he saw in the Board Party." Defendant 
Carroll claimed "Dr. Burleson was not on Dr. Hayden's side." 
That there was no Board Party and no Church Party in Texas, 
and that Plaintiff Hayden's allegations were untrue. 

R. C. Burleson swore that "B. H. Carroll and others called 
on him at Waco just before the Marshall Convention to know if 
he would stand with Dr. Hayden" at the Convention. B. H. Car- 
roll contradicted Dr. Burleson's statement. Dr. Burleson testified 
that Dr. Carroll's "unbounded ambition and love of power had set 
him against Dr. Burleson." Dr. Carroll contradicted Dr. Burle- 
son's statement, affirming- that he was a warm friend of Dr. 
Burleson. 



Defendant B. H. Carroll Uses the Name of John D. Rockefeller 
Ag-ainst Dr. Burleson. 

Defendant B. H. Cari^ll denied that he told A. M. Johnson 
that Rockefeller and the American Baptist Publication Society 
were opposed to Dr. Burleson. 



Defendant B. H. Carroll Contradicted by H. Y. Lively and 
J. M. Glass. 

Defendant Carroll testified that at the Dallas County Associa- 
tion "Dr. Hayden interrupted his prayer," proposing- to shake 
hands and settle their differences as a condition to a big col- 
lection, and this broke the spirit of the collection. 

H. Y. Lively and S. A. Hayden both testified that Carroll had 
not commenced his prayer, shut his eyes, or said a "word of 
prayer, and after Hayden's speech they took the largest collec- 
tion ever taken in the Association before or since. 

Defendant Carroll testified that it was "unnecessary to dis- 
cuss the Challenge" "because they had put themselves on record 
at Houston, and had no reason to change." "It was generally 
understood." 

J. M. Glass testified that at Hill County Association, August, 
189 7, Defendant B. H. Carroll said to him: "Dr. Hayden has 
manipulated and misrepresented until he has the Churches with 
him, and when we meet at Weatherford the retrenchers will be 
in the majority, and a division of the Convention is inevitable." 

Defendant Carroll admitted the conversation, but claims he 
only said to Glass, "Suppose he should have a majority; that 
would split the Convention," etc. 



Defendant Jenkins' Testimony. 

Defendant Jenkins testified: "I never investigated the charges 
against Cranfill for taking $10 at Terrell. I knew it was false. 
I wo'uld not be undignified enough to investigate it." 

The East Fork Association Minutes. 

The minutes of East Fork Association and the testimony of 
C. A. Ritchie, J. T. Vance, S. L. Yarrell, J. W. Yates and E. T. 
Ritchie prove that he did take it. 

Defendant Jenkins denied any efforts on the part of the Church 
at Waco or any part thereof to "pack the Houston Convention." 
The minutes of that Convention show that the Church sent mes- 
sengers from "Sunday Schools" and "B. Y. P. U. Societies," and 
"Bagby Chapel," which had never been done before. 

Defendant Jenkins testified that Dr. Carroll told him that he 
wanted McGee put off the Board of Trustees. 

Defendant Jenkins testified that he had told the Board of 
Trustees that after McGee's hospitality to Dr. Burleson, to retain 
him on the Board would convict the Board of conspiracv against 
Dr. Burleson. J. L. Whittle testified that Carroll importuned 
him and others of the nominating committee to retain McGee and 
B. H. Carroll testified that he did so importune Whittle, Knight, 
and others of the committee, but denied that he used the lan- 
guage ascribed to him. 

Defendant Jenkins testified that he knew nothing of any effort 
on the part of the Board to withhold information from the people, 
and then admitted that the Board withheld from Dr. Havden the 



260 THE COMPLETE 

right to examine Cranfill's books, and Battle's testimony shows 
that Defendant Pender was also denied. 

Defendant Jenkins further testified that he never investi- 
gated the truth of the alleged "Condition" of Consolidation that 
Dr. Burleson should be Chancellor for life, but just knew on 
general principles that it could never have been entered into. 

The minutes of the Baptist General Association showed that it 
was a "Condition" to consolidation. 



Defendant J. M. Carroll Pays His Insurance Out of the Mission 

Fund. 

Defendant J. M. Carroll testified that he paid his Accident Life 
Insurance policy out of the mission fund to save the Board his 
"traveling expenses of from $250 to $700 a year." His Accident 
Life Insurance policy cost, first year, $40.00; afterwards, $25.00 
a year. His testimony is a confession 0iat if the Board had not 
paid his Accident Life Insurance policy, he would have made it 
cost the Board from $250.00 to $700.00 a year. He stated in his 
oath that had they not ] aid his Accident Insurance policy, he 
would not have accented the ticket, , and it would have cost the 
Board approximately from $250.00 to $700.00 a year. In other 
words, to save himself $25.00 a year, he would draw on the Mis- 
sion funds from $250.00 to $700.00 yearly. He stated under oath 
that Cranfill's accounts were well kept, while A. J. Holt and 
W. H. Smith both state on oath that he told them soon after 
Cranfill resigned that he "could make neither head nor tail to 
Cranfill's books." 



Defendant J. M. Carroll Docks the Missionaries, But Not himself. 

Defendant J. M. Carroll testified that "all time not actually 
employed" was docked against the Missionary who received from 
$50 to $600 a year, and his reports show this t'o be true. Yet 
his report for 1893 shows himself to have "labored 365 days" and 
to have received '$2,500." It was proven and acknowledged that 
he spent several weeks of that Conventional year at the World's 
Fair, Chicago, on a complimentary railroad ticket, and took several 
hunts in the Southwest. 

Defendant J. M. Carroll published an article saying "he had 
never seen a better kept set of books than Cranfill's." 



A. J. Holt and H. W. Smith Contradict Defendant J. M. CarrolL 

H. W. Smith and A. J. Holt both swore that J. M. Carroll said 
to them that he "could make neither heads nor tails out of Cran- 
fill's books." Carroll denied, but only "to the best of his recol- 
lection." 

J. M. Carroll's boo'ks conflict with his oral testimony: "I do 
not think the $2,500 I paid Cranfill ought to be counted on his 
last six months' work." 

From J. M. Carroll's Cash Book, Page 3, April 15, 1892: "Sent 
Cranfill for Missionaries on last quarter." 

On Page 7, June 4, 1892, are 30 entries of variaus amcmnti, 
total $1,534.06, with the following entries: 

"The above amount sent to J. B. C. $1,534.06." 

Page 17, July 2, 1892: "Paid J. B. Cranfill, $230." 

Other amounts on J. M. Carroll's Books show that he paid De- 
fendant Cranfill over $2,500 after Cranfill went out of office, April 
5, 1892. 



J. M. Carroll's Oath Contradicted hy His Own Books. 

Thus it will be seen that J. M. Carroll's sworn statement that 
the money he paid Cranfill was not to pay Missionaries for the 
last quarter is contradicted by his own books. 



Defendant G. W. Truett Favors Dr. Burleson's Displacement. 

Defendant G. W. Truett first denied having said: "Dr. Burleson 
would have to be removed from the Presidency of Baylor Uni- 
versity on account of misappropriation of University funds." 

A. M. Johnson and J. L. "Whittle both testified that he had so 
stated to them in 1892. 



CONSPIRAOY TRIAL 261 

S. A. Hayden testified that Truett told him in 1892 that Dr. 
Burleson would have to be removed. 

The conflict between Defendant G. W. Truett and A. C. Spear* 
is not absolute, Spears stating what he "heard Gambrell say," and 
Truett merely saying that he "was present, and did not hear 
Gambrell say it." The conflict between Truett's testimony and 
that of A. M. Johnson and J. L. Whittle is absolute, Truett denying: 
Johnson affirming. 

Dr. H. W. Smith testified that in 1892 Defendant G. W. Truett 
told him Dr. Burleson would have to be removed from the Presi- 
dency of Baylor Universsity. 



Defendant A. E* Baten Contradieted in His Own Handwriting. 

Defendant A. E. Baten testified that Dr. Hayden's answer en- 
titled "My Reply" never came into his possession, at the Con- 
vention. 

W. T- Sanders testified that when Dr. Hayden called for his 
defence when he spoke: "I saw Bennett Hatcher pass a paper 
to A. E. Baten, saying he would not let anybody else have it. 
Sanders saw Baten hand it to Dr. Hayden." 

Defendant Baten further testified that Dr. Hayden had written 
him letters, now "destroyed," accusing Cranfill of burning his 
office for insurance. Plaintiff Hayden produced the letters, which 
Baten recognized under oath, but which contained no such state- 
ments. The identity of the letters was perfect, for Baten had 
written his answer on the blank part of the first, and returned it 
to Hayden. The second letter was identified by Baten under oath. 
Both letters, the only letters ever written, were in conflict with 
Baten's statements; for, first, he had not "destroyed" them; and, 
second, their contents were different from his oath. 

Defendant Slaughter denied that he stood up in his chair when 
he voted. 

His testimony at the former trial being read to him stating 
that "he got up in his chair and held up his hands when he 
voted," he admitted that he did so testify, and added, "I expect 
I did." 



Defendant C. C. Slaughter Denies Knowing His Old Friend Rev. 
Henry Evans. 

Defendant Slaughter denied that the Hayden Challenge was 
discussed and denied that there was any agreement reached in 
that Caucus other than to abide the decision of the Convention. 

Rev. Henry Evans testified that he was a life-long acquaint- 
ance of C. C. Slaughter, lived near him at Palo Pinto, went to 
school with him there, visited him at his home in Dallas in 1895, 
and met him at the San Antonio Convention in 1897 when Slaugh- 
ter said to him, slapping him familiarly on the shoulder and call- 
ing him by his first name: "I tell you, Brother Henry, we are 
determined to down that man, S. A. Hayden." Slaughter denied 
that he had ever seen or heard of Evans, and that his statement 
was of "whole cloth" — "manufactured." Plaintiff produced thirty 
or forty depositions of prominent men of both Board Party and 
Church Party who swore to the high standing and good reputation 
for truth and veracity of Rev. Henry Evans. On the presenta- 
tion of these depositions, General Crane, counsel for Slaughter, 
arose and admitted the truth claimed in the depositions. Any 
number of prominent men will testify in court that they knew 
Henry Evans and C. C. Slaughter to be old and intimate acquaint- 
ances. 



Defendant J. B. Riddle Contradieted by R. F. Butler. 

R. F. Butler testified to a conversation with Defendant J. B. 
Riddle two months before the San Antonio Convention. "I sup- 
pose, Brother Riddle, you men are going to try to oust Dr. Hay- 
den again this year." Riddle said, "No, Brother Butler, we are 
going to meet him at the door this year." 

Riddle testified: "I did not say that to him, I do not think 
that he ought to have a seat if he asked for it." 



Defendant D. G. Wooten Would Correct His Mistake. 



262 THE COMPLETE 

P. J. Florence testified: "I know Dudley G. Wooten. I had 
a conversation with him after the Convention. He said as the 
Convention was a corporation it had the right to try Dr. Hayden, 
and he said he did not think it was right to try him that way. 
X asked him why he didn't oppose it? He said, 'Sometimes you 
have to run along with a crowd and check them up by degrees;' 
and that after his campaign for State Representative was over he 
was going to try to unify the Baptists and correct their mistakes 
and wrongs. 

La-fryer Lewis "Wood on Defendant J. M. Carroll's Rentals. 

Testimony of Lewis Wood, Attorney, witness for plaintiff: "My 
name is Lewis Wood. Am a resident of Dallas and a lawyer by 
profession. I resided in Lampasas while Rev. J. M. Carroll was 
Secretary of Missions. I was dealing in real estate and was well 
acquainted with property values, rentals, etc. I am well ac- 
quainted with the property occupied by Rev. J. M. Carroll as a 
residence. The whole residence would have rented for not more 
than $15.00 or $20.00 a month." 



J. R. Hodges an Cranfill's Shotgun. 

Testimony of Rev. J. R* Hodges, witness for Plaintiff. Rev. 
J. R. Hodges was in 1897 agent for Defendant J. B. Cranfill's 
paper. When the vote was taken on the challenge Monday night 
Cranfill said to him, 'Ain't he (Hayden) dead? He's dead." 

Rev. J. R. Hodges says he would have testified that two days 
before the vote was taken he suggested to Defendant Cranfill that 
an effort be made by him for some settlement with S. A. Hayden, 
to which Defendant Cranfill replied: "I would rather take a 
shotgun and blow his brains out." 

"Defendant R. T. Hanks was standing by me when the vote 
was taken and said: 'Get up, Hodges.' I said: 'It is not my 
time.' He answered: 'You had better vote with your friends; 
better stay with your friends.' " 



Testimony of A. J. Holt, "Witness for Plaintiff. 

In the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Term, 1898. S. 
A. Hayden vs. J. B. Cranfill et al. 

Deposition of Dr. A. J. Holt, witness for Plaintiff in the above 
cause taken upon the interrogatories on the 2nd day of February, 
1899, at Nashville, Tenn. The said witness, age 51, being duly 
sworn, deposed as follows: 

Int. 1. State your name, age, residence and occupation. 

Ans. A. J. Holt. Age 51 years. Residence Nashville, Tenn. 
Occupation, Minister of the Gospel and Corresponding Secretary 
of Missions. 

Int. 2. Are you acquainted with the parties to this suit 

Ans. I am. 

Int. 3. State Dr. Hayden's efforts to consoldiate and for Bap- 
tist General Convention. 

Ans. Dr. Hayden put forth strenuous efforts to consolidate 
the General Association and State Convention of Texas, in which 
efforts he was successful. He was opposed in this by Dr. O. C. 
Pope, Dr. J. B. Link and others. 

Int. 4. Were you officially connected with the Baptist Gen- 
eral Convention? How? When? 

Ans. I was the Corresponding Secretary of the Baptist Gen- 
eral Convention from the date of its organization (1886) to Oc- 
tober, 1889. 

Int. 5. Soon after Cranfill's resignation as Secretary and J. 
M. Carroll was elected as his successor had you any conversa- 
tion with J. M. Carroll as to the condition of Cranfill's books? 
If yea, then state when and where it was, how the conversation 
came up and what and all he said about them. State specifically 

Ans Yes, in Dr. B. H. Carroll's study, at some meeting of the 
Board of Directors, I cannot recall the particulars of the con- 
versation nor how it came up. I do recall, however, that Brother 
J M. Carroll, referring to my books, said "they were all straight, 
but as for Brother Cranfill's he could make neither head nor tail 
out of them." 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 263 

Int. 6. Sometime in the year 1888 did you go with B. H. Car- 
roll from Reagan to a Fifth Sunday meeting at a country Church 
a few miles from Reagan in a buggy together? And during such 
ride B. H. Carroll gave his opinion of S. A. Hayden as a dan- 
gerous man to be at the head of the denominational paper? If 
yes. state fully the conversation. What he said. His reason. 
And all that was said fully. Answer specifically. 

Ans. 1 did. He did. I cannot recall at this distance the par- 
ticulars of the conversation, but we were speaking of denomina- 
tional matters generally and Dr. Hayden in particular. We were 
botn struck with Dr. Hayden's resourcefulness and agreed that 
"he was hard to head off. Dr. Carroll seemed to stand in doubt 
erf Hayden's trustworthiness as a denominational leader; he 
seemed to regret that lie could not place entire confidence in Dr. 
Hayden's leadership. This conversation was subsequent to the 
consolidation of the Texas Baptist and the Texas Baptist Herald. 

Int. 7. J. B. Cranfill stated that you left a debt on the denom- 
ination of nearly five thousand dollars, and the report of the 
special committee on June 26, 1894, and adopted at Marshall, 
say?; it was "something over twenty-five hundred dollars." Please 
state how much you did leave. Explain fully. 

Ans. I am quite positive that at the time I turned over the 
affairs to Dr. J. B. Cranfill I turned over a debt of just six hun- 
dred and fifty dollars. I had advanced this amount out of my 
personal means in paying the last quarter's salary to the mis- 
sionaries. I am quite positive that at that pay day I paid up 
every missionary whose report had been received, as was my 
custom, but I recall that several delayed reports were received 
afterward. I think, perhaps, there were twelve or thirteen of 
them. Their being delayed caused them to fail to be placed on 
the payroll for this quarter, and these reports were turned over 
to Dr. Cranfill to be paid the next quarter. With them were 
turned into his hands the pledges taken at Houston, amounting 
to about Five Thousand Dollas. These were generally consid- 
ered to be erood as they were given by our strongest and best 
Churches. The twelve or thirteen reports did not foot up to more 
than Five Hundred Dollars, and this much or more came in as 
the result of my efforts before I ceased to aid Dr. Cranfill to start. 

Int. 8. Did you or not write a letter to Dr. S. A. Hayden and 
S. J. Anderson, dated October 6th, 1894, in which you said: "Cran- 
nll's statement that I left a debt of 'Nearly Five Thousand Dollars' 
is wholly untruthful. I ask you, and through you, I ask all other 
brethren in Texas, to let not this reproach be cast upon me?" 

Ans. I may have used the language attributed to me. I was 
wounded at the statement of Dr. Cranfill. I felt it to be in- 
correct and did not wish to rest under its reproach. 

Int. 10. Looking to your mooted appointment as Assistant 
Secretary of the Home Mission Board of Atlanta, Georgia, did you 
or not receive from J. B. Gambrell, B. H. Carroll, J. B. Cranfill 
or other rersons of .Texas any suggestion, request or advice, 
verbal or written, to take any given position or write any com- 
munication denunciatory of S. A. Hayden or antagonizing his 
policies, plans and course, or that of the Texas Baptist Herald 
or endorsing the Organized work as organized, and if so, was it 
not as a condition to their endorsement of your appointment as 
such Assistant Secretary? If such was verbal, state who the par- 
ties were, when and where was it and what was said. If writ- 
ten, attach the written letter, or otherwise copies thereof to your 
answer identified by the officer taking this deposition as exhibit 
thereto. 

Ans. I did receive from Dr. J. B. Gambrell a courteous let- 
ter stating that in his opinion my appointment as Assistant Sec- 
retary of the Home Mission Board of Atlanta, Ga., would not 
De acceptable to the friends of the organized work in Texas un- 
less I should publish a statement defining my position as a friend 
of the organized work. At his request I wrote an article for 
the Missionary Worker defining my position as heartily favoring 
the organized work, urging my friends to sustain it. This article 
Dr. Hayden republished in his paper with editorial comments 
.whereupon Dr. Gambrell wrote me that Dr. Hayden had "posi- 



264 THE COMPLETE 

tioned" me, and that my only course was to come out in open 
antagonism to Dr. Hayden and his views. I had no communi- 
cation with Dr. Cranfill on this matter at all. 

Int. 11. Did you or not write a communication published in 
the Missionary Worker which was copied and commented on in 
the Texas Baptist Herald. And after which did not J. B. Gam- 
brell write to you that as Dr. S. A. Hayden had "positioned" you 
as in alignment with him, advise against your appointment? If 
yes, attach your letter or copy thereof to your answer hereto, 
identified by the officer taking this deposition as an exhibit 
thereto. 

Ans. I have answered this in my answer to Int. No. 10. 

Int. 12. At Wilmington, N. C, at Southern Baptist Conven- 
tion, on or about the 7th of May, 1897, had you any information 
as to the state at feeling existing on the part of Rev. B. H. Car- 
roll, his wife and sons, Rev. B. H. Carroll, Jr., and Rev. C. C. 
Carroll, toward S. A. Hayden, and of any meditated or threatened 
violence by them or either of them on said Hayden? If so, state 
what it was. State fully. Did you ever warn S. A. Hayden of 
said danger by communicating the same to him and if so, when 
and where? 

Ans. I did receive information at the Southern Baptist Con- 
vention at Wilmington, N. C, which I considered reliable and 
which led me to believe that there was personal danger to Dr. 
S. A. Hayden from the sons of Dr. B. H. Carroll. I conceived it 
to be my duty to avert the calamity of a personal encounter be- 
tween ministers of the gospel and so warned Dr. Hayden in 
order that he might not aggravate the sons of Dr. Carroll. 

A. J. HOLT. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me at Nashville, Tenn., this 
2nd day of February, 1889. 

Given under my hand this 4th day of February, 1899. 

W. B. PAUL, Notary Public. 

It will be seen that by this time Witness A. J. Holt had be- 
come an unwilling witness. He was expecting to become As- 
sistant Secretary for Dr. I. T. Tichenor and to be his successor 
as Dr. Kerfoot afterwards became. Witness Holt blamed Plaint- 
iff for commending him for the place, saying he should have the 
support of all Texas Baptists, which Defendant Gambrell said 
"positioned" Holt and that as one of the State Secretaries, he, 
Gambrell, could not favor Holt's election because forsooth Plaint- 
iff had, by endorsing and commending Holt "positioned" him! 
Hence Holt's language in his deposition: "I may have used the 
language attributed to me" in a matter of absolute certitude. 
And "personal danger" and "personal encounter between min- 
isters" when Witness Holt had warned Plaintiff at Wilmington 
that the mother of the Reverends B. H. Jr. and C. C. Carroll had, 
he said — his exact words are given from a letter in his own hand- 
writing now before me — as follows: 

"Some years ago, while I was a resident of Tennessee, the 
Southern Baptist Convention held in Wilmington, N. C. I was 
then a friend to Dr. Hayden. I was also, as I have ever been, 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 265 

a friend to Dr. Carroll, Dr. Carroll's first wife was then living 
and was at the Convention. She told me, not in confidence but in 
the course of our ordinary conversation, that she was in mortal 
dread lest one of her boys would kill Hayden. That she had so 
far restrained them." In the same letter he complains: "Had 
it not been for Hayden, I would probably now be the Correspond- 
ing Secretary of the Home Mission Board of the Southern Bap- 
tist Convention." 

The truth is, that Witness Holt had written repeatedly an 
endorsement of the reform movement in Texas, and Defendant 
Gambrell knew it. But he held out to Holt the Secretaryship of 
the Southern Baptist Convention to lead Holt to endorse pub- 
licly "the organized work in Texas as organized." The tempta- 
tion was too great for Holt. His letters showed he had con- 
demned the Board Party, Cranfill, Gambrell, Hanks, Slaughter, 
W. L. Williams and if not by name, by clear implication every 
Board Party partisan in Texas. His private letters, all in his 
own handwriting, show that he now allied himself with them 
all. These facts are cited to show the danger of seeking posi- 
tion, emoluments and honors one of another. Self-seeking is the 
bane of our ministry. Happy is he who heeds the injunction of 
our Savior: 

"How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, 



266 THE COMPLETE 

Testimony Continued. 
CHAPTER XXV. 
DEFENDANT GAMBRELL'S EMBARRASSMENT. 

Perhaps the proper connection here is the testimony of De- 
fendant Gambrell. To understand this testimony it is necessary 
to repeat here that the theory of Defendant's attorneys was to 
justify their conduct by the Truth of the libelous challenge 
This is the law, the righteous law, of Texas. If you write the 
Truth in Texas the law protects you. It banks, so to speak, on 
Townsend's and Rogers' theory that he who publishes the Truth 
on wrongdoers is the best citizen because the press is the main 
support of law and order in every commonwealth. But to pub- 
lish that which is false on a citizen is a crime of the direst de- 
gree, for it not only wrongs a citizen, but it perverts a powerful 
trusted instrument — the press, for the protection of society. 
Hence the severity of the Texas libel law against falsehood and 
the praise of the Truth. Keeping this distinction in mind, re- 
call that 

1. The libel said of the Plaintiff, "He is unworthy on moral 
grounds." The attorneys for Defendants announced at the out- 
set: "The Decalogue is our standard of morals." For one to 
violate the 9th Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness 
against thy neighbor" was to become "unworthy on moral 
grounds." Note that. 

2. The Texas Baptist Herald was ransacked for 20 years for 
some statement that might be proven "untrue." To God thanks 
are daily given that, in the estimation of judge, jury, spectators 
and we believe attorneys, not a statement was found that was 
proven untrue. Twice the attorneys for Defendants thought 
they had found the longed for violation of the 9th Command- 
ment. But the denouement, as the French say, the untying of 
the knot in each case, left them in ever recurring despair. This 
brings us to Defendant Gambrell's testimony. 

First, there was an article in The Texas Baptist Herald saying 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 267 

substantially that Secretary J. B. Gambrell did not secure a rate 
of $5.00 to the San Antonio Convention in 1897. This was seized 
upon as a "malicious lie." Defendant Gambrell, on the witness 
stand, testified that he had secured a $5.00 rate on all trunk lines 
to the San Antonio Convention, and that Plaintiff had therefore 
published a "malicious falsehood, knowing it was false at the 
time he published it, knowing it would injure the organized work, 
that it was well calculated to injure the organized work and it 
did injure the organized work." 

Plaintiff testified that his statement was true. 

Here was a clear issue of veracity. As in all cases there was 
room for possible mistake. But Defendant Gambrell was bold 
in his testimony, and "knew" he had secured the $5.00 rate 
beyond the possibility of doubt. He got it himself, could not be 
mistaken, remembered all the details. His boldness was caused, 
perhaps, by two considerations: First, his testimony was posi- 
tive; Plaintiff's negative. He could know definitely of his own 
knowledge, whether he got it or not. Plaintiff could not know. 
This gave Defendant Gambrell, as to actual competency, the ad- 
vantage. How could the Plaintiff know of his own knowledge 
whether Defendant Gambrell had got a $5.00 rate or any other 
rate? This advantage made Defendant Gambrell bold to a fault. 

Second: There was a necessity for Defendant Gambrell's 
positiveness amounting to a crisis. The defense was hunting for 
something in The Texas Baptist Herald that could be proven 
"untrue." Scores and perhaps hundreds of passages had been 
cited from the columns of The Texas Baptist Herald as "ma* 
licious falsehoods, known to the Plaintiff to be false, intended 
to injure the organized work and did injure the organized work." 
Every one of these passages thus far had, in the estimation of 
the jury, and spectators, been proven true. This "$5.00" rate 
passage was the "Last Chance." It must be made secure. All 
else had failed. It seemed to the Defendants and Defendants' 
counsel conclusive, because the Plaintiff could have only negative 
knowledge, as they supposed, while Defendant Gambrell had 



268 THE COMPLETE 

positive knowledge. 

Third: Reinforcing this assumption on the part of of De- 
fendants and their counsel was the fact that the railroad records 
were supposedly lost or destroyed. Indeed, in a sense they were, 
as the sequel will show, but were found. Counsel for Plaintiff 
were in possession of this fact, but kept it to themselves and let 
the matter run on day after day, renewing the positive reitera- 
tions of Defendant Gambrell that he "knew positively that he 
had got the $5.00 rate, as he was frequently called to the witness 
stand, always increasing his emphasis, as he supposed he had 
this "Last Chance" nailed! The desperateness of this "mali- 
cious falsehood" of Plaintiff having published that Defendant 
Gambrell had not got a $5.00 rate will appear from the fact that 
it would have proved only a mistake of secondary importance, 
since in point of fact no one could get a $5.00 rate at that time. 
But Defendants did not regard relevancy. They wanted a viola- 
tion of the Ninth Canon of the Decalogue. "That is our standard 
of morals," said they, "and whoever violates the Ninth Com- 
mandment is unworthy on moral grounds." Any statement, 
however irrelevant or immaterial, is in this aearth of evidence 
better than nothing. And the Defendants rejoiced exceedingly. 
They had found one statement, then, at least, in which Plaintiff 
had published "a falsehood." (?) "A lie," reiterated their coun- 
sel, "is the worst form of bad morals." And they hunted ever a 
lie's semblance. And in this one instance, at least, Plaintiff had 
lied! they held. Plaintiff's counsel had the proof in reserve, De- 
fendants' disaster was decided and complete. 

Attorneys always work for climaxes. The attorneys for both 
sides had worked in this "$5.00 Rate" for a climax. The interest 
had become acute. Counsel for Defendants were exultant. Coun- 
sel for Plaintiff, reserving their denouement, were passive, with- 
out facial expression, seemingly stolid, listless, even callous. A 
day or two elapsed when the same scene was wrought again, 
Defendant Gambrell repeating now with manifest triumph: "I 
swear I got a $5.00 Rate." At this juncture counsel for Plaintiff 
asked him for Defendant Gambrell's written statement! 



CONSPIRAdY TRIAL 269 

Defendant Gambrell's Written Statement. 

This statement was handed to Defendant Gambrell on . the 
witness stand and he was asked: "You have been requested 
several times in this suit to refresh your memory as to whether 
it was possible for you to forget the facts of the case and whether 
Dr. Hayden has not sworn the truth which you have pronounced 
a "malicious lie." Read this, your own published statement, and 
see if that will refresh your memory. You have published to 
the Baptist denomination in Texas in this article that you could 
not get a $5.00 rate, that the railroads had assured you that 
the old $5.00 rate entailed a positive loss on the roads; that one 
and one-third fare for all points within 75 miles and one fare 
for the round trip with 10 per cent added from 100-mile points 
or over ,was the best you could do. Dr. Hayden has sworn that 
you did not get a $5.00 rate and here is the proof of it. Examine 
this statement and see whether you have wronged him in your 
attempt to make out that in his statement he told a "malicious 
falsehood," and that "a lie was the worst form of bad morals and 
that for this lie he was unworthy on moral grounds." The De- 
fendants were panic-stricken. The counsel for Defendants were 
stunned. Defendant Gambrell was pale with confusion, chagrin, 
not to say shame. He had kept his Co-defendants and his at- 
torneys in exultant delight over the finding of a supposed case 
where Plaintiff had "maliciously lied." This was the "last 
chance." The case had reached a crisis. To abandon this point 
was to lose the case. It was the "death angle" and must not be 
given up. Defendant Gambrell was deathly pale. 

1. Waving before the jury the article he had signed himself, 
he exclaimed with deathly emphasis: "No matter what I wrote, I 
swear I got a $5.00 rate." But he was swearing against himself 
against the Plaintiff, against the railroads, and against Truth 
After this it was noticed that he was absent from the court room, 
not all the time, but much of the time. Then the railroad officials 
were summoned with the railroad records which had been ex- 
cavated from their lost cellars. Gen. M. M. Crane, attorney for 



270 THE COMPLETE 

Defendant Gambrell, in his absence, arose and stated: "Your 
Honor, you need not swear the witness, I admit that my client 
made a mistake." But counsel for Plaintiff insisted that the wit- 
ness should be sworn, declaring that "No $5.00 rate had been 
given to Defendant Gambrell for any convention in 1897," and 
read the records of the railways. 

Here were two cases of deliberate perjury by Defendant Gam- 
brell, who was trying to prove Plaintiff guilty of "malicious 
falsehood." This, and his sworn statement that he had accepted 
$700 on the side to pay the school bills of his 'two' daughters, 
when he had only one in school. This last was rather moral 
than legal perjury, being merely on account for $700 when "one" 
daughter's school bill would seem inadequate. Before Plaintiff 
had time to obtain testimony from Meridian, Miss., and Atlanta, 
Ga., Defendant Gambrell voluntarily asked the Court to "permit 
him to make a correction," which he did, admitting that his oath 
that he had "two daughters in school was not correct. He had 
only one." This took his perjury out of the criminal category, 
because any perjurious statement corrected before the case goes 
to the jury, relieves the person making the false oath from indict- 
ment. 

2. In the oath of "The $5.00 Rate," Defendant Gambrell and 
his counsel had made it a material statement, as upon it de- 
pended the truth of a phrase in the Challenge: "He is unworthy 
on moral grounds." But the attorney made for his client in his 
absence the correctio-n which removed it also from the category 
of criminal perjury. Sometime had elapsed between Defendant 
Gambrell's oath and the introduction of the railroad officials so 
that counsel knew, as he said, that "His client in his oath (sev- 
eral days previous) had made a mistake." Therefore it was 
known to Defendant J. B. Gambrell and to his attorney that his 
sworn statement was not true. And had not counsel for Plaintiff 
introduced testimony of the railroad officials, Defendant Gam- 
brell's testimony would have gone to the jury without correc- 
tion. But his vigilant counsel, who knew the predicament of his 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 271 

client, was oi) me qui vive to protect him and save him from 
the penalty of criminal perjury. 

But the worst is to come: In the third Trial, Defendant Gam- 
bfell undertook to relieve himself of his former sworn statement 
by saying that "it was not at the San Antonio Convention that he 
got the $5.00 rate, but the Waco Convention in 1898." Whatever 
allowance might have existed for his former sworn statement, 
this last sworn statement shut off all avenues of charity; for by 
referring to the article quoted above, it will be seen that "San 
Antonio" is expressly mentioned, so that the "mistake" could not 
have been as between San Antc-nio, 1897, and Waco, 1898. And 
this for several reasons, which, because of the stress laid by 
Defendants on this melancholy case, are here enumerated: 

1. The Convention never met at San Antonio except in 1897. 
Defendant Gambrell's article said expressly, "San Antonio." 

2. The dates given in the article Defendant Gambrell signed 
limiting the sale of tickets to "November 4, 1897," fix it at San 
Antonio Convention 1897 and not at Waco, 1898. 

3. But Defendant Gambrell swore on the last Trial that while 
the Convention did not meet at San Antonio in 1898, when he 
got the $5.00 rate, nevertheless, "there had been some question 
of its meeting at San Antonio, which would accc-unt for his hav- 
ing said San Antonio rather than Waco, as it should have been." 

4. But this did not help the matter, since no $5.00 rate was 
given for any Convention or meeting of any sort in Texas in 
1897 or 1898 or 1899, the railroads having announced in 1897, as 
Defendant Gambrell published, that "the $5.00 rate involved the 
railroads in loss." 

5. Therefore, however large a mantle of charity might be 
thrown over the 1897 San Antonio $5.00 rate oath arising from a 
possible mistake of memory, leading one to affirm as a supposed 
fact with all emphasis without intentional perjury, which some- 
times happens, yet the effort to sustain his oath in the 1897 $5.00 
rate case by fixing it at Waco in 1898, where it never occurred 



272 THE COMPLETE 

and could not occur, shows a deliberate effort to escape eniDar- 
rassment by an additional perjurious statement. 

Now, let it be borne in mind, that while he afterwards admit- 
ted that his emphatic oath of the second Trial was a "mistake," 
yet his emphatic oath in the next Trial, equally as untrue, as 
proven, leaves him in the same predicament he was in in the 
1897 case, before his attorney, in his absence, admitted that "hU 
client had made a mistake." This $5.00 rate oath, together with 
other oaths by other Defendants of a like kind, as will appear 
later, removed all doubt from the minds of the jury, as to the 
guilt of the Defendants. 

An amusing feature of Defendant Gambrell's testimony was 
his effort to prove Plaintiff Hayden "unworthy on moral grounds" 
because he had published that Defendant Gambrell's history 
might be summed up on three words, "Fuss, Fight and Fusion." 
This statement was published in The Texas Baptist Herald, and 
it was read before the jury by counsel for Defendants to show 
that it was "a malicious falsehood; that he knew it was false 
when he wrote it; that it was intended to injure the organized 
work, and that it did injure the organized work." Accordingly 
Defendant Gambrell got on the witness stand and swore that his 
life had been one of peace and pious devotion to religion; that 
he had never participated on any "Fuss"; had never been in any 
"Fight", and had never been identified with any "Fusion." This 
oath placed the burden of proof on the Plaintiff and counsel for 
Plaintiff used Defendant Gambrell as their witness: 

1. On the first count, "Fuss", Defendant Gambrell was asked 
if he had not been in "Fusses" with Drs. J. J. D. Renfro, J, R. 
Graves, J. J. Andrews, Jobe Harrell and many others by name. 
Swearing as positively as that concerning the "$5.00 Rate," De- 
fendant Gambrell swore that the Defendant's allegations of 
"Fuss, Fight and Fusion" were all "maliciously false." This 
was about the last thing he swore in the evening before adjourn- 
ment. That night a friend of the Plaintiff, Rev. E. B. Hardie, 
boarded a train at Dallas, reaching Trenton, Hunt County, after 



OONSPIEAOY TRIAL 



273 



midnight, engaged a conveyance, drove nearly a mile to the resi- 
dence of Eld. J. W. Connelly, obtained the files of The Baptist, 
J. R. Graves, editor, in which these "Fusses" had appeared, in- 
cluding extracts from the Mississippi Baptist, or Baptist Record, 
J. B. Gambrell, editor, drove back to the train in less than an 
hour, took the south-bound and reached Dallas at 6 o'clock next 
morning. After developing the usual emphasis before the jury, 
counsel for Plaintiff opened the files of these papers and read 
all these "Pusses" over the signature of J. B. Gambrell, asking 
Defendant Gambrell whether his signature was genuine to these 
articles and had he not had these "Fusses" with the men named. 
Defendant Gambrell replied: "Oh, I have had over a hundred 
controversies with these men and others." This confession on 
the part of the witness induced the Court to shut off the investi- 
gation as an unnecessary waste of time, and instructed the coun- 
self for Plaintiff to proceed with other questions, if he had any. 
This established "Fuss." 

2. From Defendant Gambrell's own writings, published in 
the Baptist Standard, it was shown that he boasted that he was 
coming to Texas "either to work or fight." This established the 
"Fight." 

3. From the same paper, the Standard, was read an editorial 
to the effect that "had not Defendant Gambrall been so short a 
time in Georgia, rendering his election invalid, he would have 
been a candidate for Governor on the "Fusion" ticket of the Pop- 
ulists and Prohibitionists," and some other political elements in 
that State. This established the "Fusion," which was accom- 
panied by a whole-horse laugh of the legal household. The 
Plaintiff's analysis of his life as a trinity of "Fuss, Fight and 
Fusion" was proven by Defendant Gambrell's own papers to be 
no "malicious falsehood," but the actual truth. 

Added to this, Defendant Gambrell, while charging that 
Plaintiff was ruining the organized work, habitually contradicted 
himself in his own reports: 

"With the cordial spirit of co-operation now animating all of 
our institutions, with a better understanding of the principles 



274 THE COMPLETE 

underlying co-operative effort, with the spirit of liberality on 
the increase, as has been recently manifested in such a strik 
ing manner, with all the strong centers in accord, we are hap 
pily arrived at a point to greatly develop the State." 

"Happily, with our schools and Boards and pastors co-operat- 
ing, we are in excellent shape to undertake the fundamental 
work." 

"Touching the troubles which have co-me to us, we may well 
say in the language of Paul, the great missionary apostle: "We 
would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which have 
happened unto us, have fallen out rather unto the furtherance 
of the gospel." 

"All of the organized forces of the State stand together." 

"Instead of real division, these troubles, unwelcome as they 
have been, have promoted a sound unity." 

"Not only has the trial of our faith been more precious than 
gold, but this trial has brought gold and silver to the treasury 
of our Lord." 

"We come to the end of the year and to the end of the cen- 
tury under circumstances of great hopefulness. For years there 
has been a steady growth in every department of our work." 

"The Convention adjourned a year ago on the mountain 
top." 

"The successes of former years had had a cumulative effect 
in uniting the forces, strengthening the stakes and greatly en- 
larging the faith of the workers." 

"Your Board comes again, with great joy, to report another 
year of the Right Hand of God among us." 

All signed up by Defendant Gambrell and adopted by nearly 
every one of the Defendants. 

In many other instances Defendant J. B. Gambrell contradict- 
ed himself, a recital of which would swell this volume beyond 
reasonable limits. Only a few more, therefore, are here given, 
including for the convenience of the reader a recapitulation. 

Defendant Gambrell testified that the custom of the Board 
was to "allow missionaries to receive gifts." This is contradict- 
ed by his contract with the missionaries, which requires them 
to "report all gifts as collections." Defendant Gambrell received 
additional to his salary of $1800 but did not report it. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 275 

Defendant Gambrell denied electioneering for re-election as 
Corresponding Secretary. 

Plaintiff Hayden testified that at Navarro County Associa- 
tion Defendant Gambrell helped to prepare and advocated a re- 
port advocating his re-election. 

A. C. Spears, a member with Defendant Gambrell of the First 
Baptist Church, Dallas, testified that Gambrell said at a meeting 
in the First Church, Dallas, prior to the Waco Convention, that 
he "wanted the Church to send good delegates, that he would 
like to be Secretary one more term." 

Defendant Gambrell swore that while he had advocated the re- 
port which recommended his re-election, he did not advocate that 
particular part of it. 

Defendant Gambrell swore thrice that he "knew" that he had 
obtained a "$5.00 Rate" to San Antonio in 1897. Being shown his 
own publication of that year, he refused to acknowledge or deny 
it as his own, but swore, "No matter what I wrote, I swear I got 
the $5.00 rate." 

J. K. Looney, witness for Plaintiff, was summoned to testify 
that he had kept a memorandum of expenses on the trip, which 
showed that his round trip ticket from Dallas cost "7.45." Scores 
of others would testify to the same thing. 

J. M. Tyler, official of Texas and Pacific Railway, swore 
that he had issued no "$5.00" Rate" for the San Antonio Conven- 
tion, and read his schedule of prices, for that occasion, showing 
that from all points beyond Dallas it was over $7.45," reaching as 
high as $18.00, as far as Big Springs or Midland. 



Does shadow cloud the sky with care? 
Press toward that pure, diviner air 
Brave spirits breathe who sternly dare 
Be true! 

Fight on! Beyond the stars the light, 
Surpassing day, shall cheer thy sight, 
If thou but thro' this stormy night 
Be true! 

O Soul, count not thy treasure dear — 
Lose gold — aye, life! But persevere 
And bathe in that high atmosphere — 
Be true! 



276 THE COMPLETE 

An Appeal to Our Brethren of the Southern Baptist Convention 

for Justice. 

"Truth," I cried, "though the heavens crush me for following 
her; no falsehood, though a whole celestial Lubberland were the 
price of apostasy!" — Carlyle. 
To the Baptists of the Southern Baptist Convention: 

Dear Brethren — Much to our grief, we have been compelled 
to take cognizance of matters which have been put before our 
brethren in the old States, to which if we do not formally reply 
it will be taken for granted they are true. Even it has been 
seriously proposed to expel our brethren from the Southern Bap- 
tist Convention on the grounds that we are "opposed to the or- 
ganized work," are "anti-missionaries," "hardshells," "kickers," 
"splitters," "devil's side-trackers," "Judases," and such like. These 
things have been persisted in for years, so we are compelled in 
self-defense to answer them. These Board Party leaders have 
undertaken to make it appear that the distinction between "Board 
Party" people and "Church Party" people in Texas is that Church 
Party people "oppose Boards," while Board Party people "favor 
Boards." They know better. The true issue is that Church Party 
people favor Boards as subordinate to the Churches, while Board 
Party people hold the Churches as subordinate to the Boards. 
Otherwise the Churches, to use their own language, "are in re- 
bellion." On the fact that we are opposed to what is known in 
Texas as Board Partyism, our Church Party people are published 
in the Baptist papers of the Southern Baptist Convention aa 
"Anti-missionaries," "Gospel Missioners," "Opposers of the Or- 
ganized," etc. The ulterior aim is to so misrepresent the spirit 
and principles of the Church Party Baptists in Texas that our 
messengers will be expelled from the Southern Baptist Conven- 
tion at Savannah, or fearing an examination, otherwise discount 
us before our brethren. J. B. Gambrell has published articles 
in the Baptist(?) Standard(?) and his Missionary Worker(?), in 
which he falsely alleges that those who oppose "Convention 
Sovereignty" and other abuses in Texas, are "in line with the 
originators of Hardshellism, Campbellism and Mormonism." We 
have, still do, and forever will oppose "Convention Sovereignty," 
nepotism, misappropriation of mission funds, supplementing sal- 
aries of pastors of strong Churches, etc. We have made no 
false charges. Listen at his slanderous words: "This history 
(of anti-missionism) is repeating itself before our very eyes in 
the Southwest; repeating itself in general plan, in method down 
to hair-lines, and in spirit and in color to the finest tint." It does 
not matter to J. B. Gambrell whether it is true or false. He 
assumes it is true, knowing it is not true. J. B. Gambrell knows 
positively that there is not one word of truth in the statement 
tnat the Missionary Baptist Association of Texas is made up 
of "Gospel Missioners and Hardshells." The men who laid the 
foundation for the evangelization of Texas all oppose Hard- 
shellism, Gospel Missionism and Mormonism. The largest givers, 
living and dead, in Texas, have been the men and women whom 
J. B. Gambrell announces as "Hardshells, Gospel Missioners and 
Mormons." Among the sainted dead whom J. B. Gambrell know- 
ingly stigmatizes we name R. C. Burleson, A. F. Sellars, J. M 
Myers, S. D. Nunnelly, J. F. Pinson, I. R. Riddle, and hosts of 
others. Among the living are such men as T. B. McComb, W. S. 
Wilson, G. W. Tull, James Christian, J. R. Christian, J. M. 
Dorroh, H. Y. Lively, D. Q. Murphree, Cicero Smith and many 
thousands of others. J. B. Gambrell calls these men "Hard- 
shells" "Anti-Missionaries," "Lined up with Mormons," etc. Thesf 
men are among the largest givers Texas has ever had. They. 
In connection with such liberal-hearted women and men as Geo 
B. Davis and Fannie B. Davis (who was by formal vote of the 
Convention declared to be the largest female giver in the State) 
have, by their self-sacrificing benefactions, caused this country to 
blossom as the rose, while J. B. Gambrell and those who are 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 27? 

stigmatizing them have made no sacrifices. They came to the 
work after the battle had been fought. They have been tugging 
at the denominational pap ever since. Gambrell, Carroll, Cranfill, 
Holt and others, who have fattened on the gifts of these faithful 
men and women, are now trying to degrade these grand mis- 
sionaries, living and dead, because they, in love for the organized 
work, sought to abate their selfishness. Think of J. B. Gambrell 
calling R. C. Burleson, T. B. McComb and such men "Hardshells!" 
And then Holt, Carroll and other sanctioning this vile slander! 
We can but repel and expose the slander. As to the charge that 
the Baptist Missionary Association is composed of "Gospel Mis- 
sioners," "Anti-Missionaries," etc., J. B. Gambrell knows that at 
its very first meeting leading Gospel Missioners presented prop- 
ositions for inter-work and that the Association unanimously 
voted that they could not work with Gospel Missioners who 
opposed Boards and Conventions. In the face of this public 
action, J. B. Gambrell tells our Baptist brethren of the South 
that our Association "opposes Boards.*' It preaches and prac- 
tices organized co-operation of the Churches, just as other co- 
operative Baptist bodies. But it rejects "Convention Sovereignty"" 
and other abuses of the Board Party Baptists in Texas. He 
knows that the action of the Board of the Missionary Association 
is published extensively, holds its meetings quarterly, makes its 
report annually, and is in no particular different in organization 
or principle from other Baptist boards. (This circular is sent out 
by our Board members). J. B. Gambrell seeks to hide the real 
issue among Texas Baptists in order to get the Church Party 
Baptists eliminated from the Southern Baptist Convention if he 
can, Or to stigmatize us if he fails. We do not oppose Boards, 
and he knows it. We oppose sham reports. We oppose th^ use 
of mission money for private ends. We oppose suppression of 
facts. We oppose the perversion of figures. We oppose unfound- 
ed official statements and the sacrilege of claiming the endorse- 
ment of them by the Holy Spirit. The Board Party in Texas 
hold that the Convention is a "sovereign body, just as a Church 
is a sovereign body," and that "The Board is the Convention ad 
interim." He falsely tells you that we hold that: 

"What the general body does the Churches do, and, therefore, 
the Churches, acting through the general body, authorize the 
Missionaries to baptize, constitute Churches and the like. Ordi- 
nation by a single Church is deemed insufficient. They have 
passed from co-operation to consolidation. They repudiate the 
principles of the Southern Baptist Convention." 

This statement shows J. B. Gambrell's real character. He does 
not give anything to prove his statements but his naked asser- 
tion. We regret to have to say that J. B. Gambrell is in the 
habit of making statements like the above and when cornered 
takes refuge in silence. Again he says: 

"These new lights hold in substance the doctrine that things 
pertaining to the kingdom of Jesus Christ have their final settle- 
ment, not in the judgment of God's people, but in civil tribunals. 
God's people can settle nothing." 

He could with equal truth have made this false charge against 
the Southern Baptist Convention; but as he invokes his court 
house record, to his court house record we will go. No man ever 
suffered worse embarrassment on the witness stand than he. It 
is notorious in Dallas. He forces us to give a few instances. As 
he bears false witness against us at the expense of the mission 
fund, we impeach his testimony. 

1. He swore that he accepted $700 in addition to his salary 
In order to pay the school bills of his "TWO daughters." He 
has "TWO daughters," but ONE of them is in an eleemosynary 
institution where no pay is asked or allowed. He could not but 
have known at the time he made the oath that he owed for 
only ONE daughter, for he had never paid anything for the other. 
And yet he swore it. Before it could be disproven, which would 
have been done, he voluntarily asked leave of the court to cor- 
rect his sworn statement, and said that he owed for only ONE. 



278 THE COMPLETE 

2. He swore that the statement in The Texas Baptist Herald 
In 1897 that he as Secretary had not got from the railroads a 
$5.00 rate to the San Antonio Convention was "a malicious false- 
hood, known to S. A. Hayden to be false and published for the 
sole purpose of injuring the organized work." This to sustain 
the clause in the Challenge that Dr. Hayden "was unworthy a 
seat in the Convention on moral grounds." "A lie," they said, 
"is the worst form of bad morals." Dr. Gambrell thrice swore 
that he had got a $5.00 rate. First, when he was first asked 
by his attorney if Dr. Hayden's statement was true; second, sev- 
eral days afterwards when he was asked by Plaintiff's attorney 
whether "after refreshing his memory," he was still prepared to 
affirm the truth of his former oath, when he repeated his oath 
with increased emphasis; and third, still later, when his own 
published statement acknowledging that he had not obtained a 
$5 rate was shown him, when with vehement emphasis he thrust 
his published statement back into the hands of the attorney, 
waved his hand to the jury and exclaimed, in the presence of the 
judge, jury, counsel and audience: "No matter what I wrote, I 
swear I got the five dollar rate." The attorneys for Plaintiff 
waited several days before they offered in evidence the railroad 
records and the testimony of the railroad officials. Pending this 
delay Defendant Gambrell offered no correction. He went him- 
self to the railroad offices and was informed that he had not got 
a $5 rate as they had issued none. And yet he went several days 
before proof of his false oath was offered without volunteering 
any correction. But when testimony was offered and after a wit- 
ness was called on the stand, his attorney in his absence asked 
that "the witness be not sworn as Attorney (Crane admitted that 
his client (Gambrell) had made a mistake." J. B. Gambrell has 
introduced the question of law suits. Let him face his own record. 

3. The third instance is in writing. His exparte deposition was 
taken as to whether he had attended a certain Caucus. He 
denied under oath. Judge W. H. Jenkins under exparte deposition 
swore that he saw Gambrell there and gave all the details. We 
have heard and believe that Gambrell visited Judge Jenkins at 
Waco and tried to get him to say "he (Jenkins) had made a 
mistake" and Judge Jenkins told him "he could not do it, as Gam- 
brell knew he was in that Caucus in the State House oHtel in 
Waco," or words to that effect. Mr. Gambrell should not invoke his 
court house record. These are only a few out of many instances 
of his false swearing. He has been repeatedly convicted of Con- 
spiracy and libel. Twice after being convicted has he and his 
confederates appealed to the higher courts. He complains of 
being forced into court. None of the Defendants would permit 
the issues to go before any Church even their own, but forced 
the trouble upon the Convention at Houston in 1896 (Gambrell 
himself not a citizen of Texas at the time taking active part) 
and San Antonio in 1897. Mr. Gambrell further says: 

"It is for Baptists to make up their minds whether they will 
forsake the principles of the Baptist denomination as held by 
all of our great bodies and go off after new lights leading their 
children with them, splitting Associations and Churches, or wheth- 
er they will abandon the leadership of these men." We suppose 
he refers to our objection to the doctrine that the "Convention 
is not composed of Churches, but of individuals." Our opposi- 
tion to this heresy makes us "new lights." But the Constitution 
of the Southern Baptist Convention reads: Art. IX. "All the offi- 
cers etc. snail be members of some regular Church in union 
with the Churches composing this Convention." Mr. Gambrell and 
his followers have tried the past few years to have the Consti- 
tutions of Texas Associations changed so as to sustain their new 
views. By this they admit that they themselves are the new 
lights." These be the "new lights" indeed which muzzle the 
press and suppress freedom of speech among Baptists, even after 
being convicted of conspiracy and libel in as honest and impartial 
a court as ever sat in any Christian country. As to "splitting 
Associations and Churches," who led the bolt and split the Dallas 
County Association? J. B. Gambrell. That was the first Asso- 
ciational "split." J. B. Gambrell may be rightly dubbed the 



CONSPIRACY T R I A L 279 



"leading splitter." He "split" Grayson, Cherokee and Mt. Zion 
Associations. Church Party men have never been guilty of "split- 
ting" an Association. Dr. Gambrell "split" the Churches at Jef- 
ferson, Oak Cliff, Ennis, Elgin, Ferris, Timpson, Lindale, Lock- 
hart and Carthage and he now maintains in all these places but 
one very feeble factions. The guilty parties have been in every 
instance the emissaries of J. B. Gambrell or under his personal 
supervision. The Church Party people are against bolts in our 
Churches and Associations, knowing that the truth in the end 
will triumph. Now he is endeavoring to poison the minds of 
brethren beyond our borders, trying to induce them to enter into 
this unholy crusade and justify the enormities he has committed 
in Texas by prostituting the Southern Baptist Convention, to his 
nefarious purposes. We would not write thus but from the in- 
veterate cruelty of the man. 

Before our brethren of the old States adopt the suggestion of 
this cruel man to exclude us from the Southern Baptist Conven- 
tion we ask an impartial hearing by an impartial committee. We 
will waive, if he will, all participation in the proceedings of the 
Savannah meeting (if we are challenged we will challenge Gam- 
brell and his co-adjutors in this unholy work) and ask a fair 
investigation. We are prepared to show the truth of all that has 
been alleged against J. B. Gambrell and the other men who 
malign God's people in Texas, the Church Party people. Let the 
Convention go on with its work and let a fair investigation be 
made. We will show that Weyler was not more cruel and ruth- 
less with the Cubans than Gambrell has been to the peaceable 
and unoffending Baptists of Texas. Lest all this might seem 
the utterance of passion we append here some sworn statements 
which show him to be atrocious in his love of war. He has 
stated of ministers who would not approve his unholy methods: 
"The time has come when the knife must be put to the throats 
of those who oppose the organized work." He denies it. But 
it can be proven by Prof. H. A. Ivey, President of the Commercial 
Colleges at Sherman and Denison, Texas, and a member of the 
First Baptist Church at Denison. Concerning the Churches that 
will not •"line up" to his wicked purposes, he has published: "They 
must be smashed." Concerning those whom he styles "kickers" 
has has published: "When a horse kicks in the team, take him 
out to whip him." His nature is cruel. His language is cruel. 
His whole life has been cruel. We do not want our brethren to 
misconstrue us. We have been under a galling fire for several 
years. We have never attempted a formal defense before. The 
battle on us is being paid for out of mission money. The Mis- 
sionary Worker paid for out of the funds handled by the organ- 
ization we labored and sacrificed to build goes loaded every issue 
to our brethren in the old* States with the vilest charges from the 
vilest pen ever dipped in ink or loaded with falsehood and poi- 
son. We are not permitted to defend ourselves against his 
malignings. He shuts us out from the columns in which he con- 
tinually slanders us. We have neither time nor money to repel 
his false charges, and our not denying it many believe him. He 
knows it and is emboldened by it. But our brethren have placed 
in our hands the money to print and circulate this, our defense 
against his long continued and unanswered slanders. We say 
here and now, after having suffered from his savage attacks for 
five years, while men who ought to know better, are in the most 
cowardly 'manner allowing and even seconding his assaults that 
we are innocent of his charges, and that he knows it. 

That our brethren may know what kind of a character we 
are afflicted with and that we are not speaking too harshly we 
here append proof of the cruel character of the man, who under 
the guise of religion is proving such a scourge to God's people 
in Texas. Let those help him who will. God will judge them. 

It is generally known by those acquainted with his history 
that his reputation for heartless cruelty is nothing new. We 
riave heard it for years, and have experienced it. We present 
some statements below, not to prove his cruelty, for that is well 



280 



THE COMPLETE 



known, but to impeach his statements against the faithful Bap- 
tist men and women in Texas whom he stigmatizes "Hardshells 
Anti-missionaries, Gospel Missioners, Campbellites, Mormons etc" 
If we shall clearly show him untruthful, his charges will at least 
require corroboration. This we now proceed to do: 

Recently he has written a letter from which we take the 
toilowing: 

Mr. Gambrell's Letter of Denial. 

Dallas Texas, March 20, 1903.— E. J. A. Hawthorne, Penning- 
ton, Texas: Dear Sir — Replying to your enquiry, I have to say 
that there is not the slightest fiber of truth in the soldier story 
It is a falsehood out of whole cloth without an incident to base 
it on. I never had a charge brought against me by any one, the 
people who had known me all my life would believe a second. 
Yours truly, j. b. GAMBRELL." 

In another letter he says: 

"I first heard the soldier story during the prohibition cam- 
paign in Mississippi (1887). It was started by saloon men. 

"J, B. GAMBRELL." 

Recently J. B. Gambrell, bringing the matter up himself, said 
to Rev. L. L. Sams, pastor of the Baptist Church in Milford, 
Texas, and a member of our Board: "The soldier story is as black 
a falsehood as ever came from the pit." We are trying to defend 
ourselves against the assaults of a man who, by his official posi- 
tion and use of mission money, has the advantage of us and we 
quote his own words in order to show that he is not reliable as 
an accuser of us and our brethren. 

Now, with his written declarations that what he softly calls 
"the soldier story," "is a falsehood of whole cloth," "without a 
fiber of truth in it," "without an incident to base it on," "originated 
by saloon men in 1887" and which "soldier story" he pronounces 
"as black a falsehood as ever came from the pit," which "no 
one who ever knew him would believe for a second," we present 
the following sworn statements: 

T. J. Fryar's Sworn Statement. 

My name is T. J. Fryar, age 60 years. I reside in Red River 
County, Texas. My occupation is that of a farmer. I am not a 
member of any Church. I was at one time a Cumberland Presby- 
terian and was an Elder in said Church. The Church was dis- 
solved and I have never affiliated with any Church since. I was 
personally acquainted with J. B. Gambrell from boyhood until 
about 1870, but have never known him since. I soldiered with 
him in the second Mississippi Regiment from April, 1862, until 
about June or July, 1864. We were in Virginia in General R. E. 
Lee's Army. His conduct after the war was criticised as a Chris- 
tian and a minister. I was present at the Fellowship Baptist 
Church about 1868 or 1869, and saw and heard Caleb Frazier 
walk up the aisle, in the presence of a large congregation, and 
ask him (J. B. Gambrell) who was in the pulpit, to pay for a pair 
of boots that he (Gambrell) took from him during the war. Gam- 
brell answered: "Oh, well, Caleb, we'll see about that afterwards," 
or words to that effect. His character and reputation during the 
war was that of a brave, courageous scout; in fact, he became 
notorious as such. It was currently reported about the camps 
and after the war was talked of frequently in the community 
where he lived, that on the retreat from Gettysburg he and a 
squad of scouts, he being in command, captured three Yankee 
soldiers, and being hardly pressed by the enemy, found an old 
well and pushed them into the well. I have never heard it denied 
either by J. B. Gambrell or any other, until I saw it in a letter 
written and signed by J. B. Gambrell. It was currently reported 
in my neighborhood, and as far as I know throughout the county, 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 281 

that he had captured a boat load of goads some time in May, 1865, 
and peddled them out through the country. I have never heard 
that denied by any one. I heard a great many speak of it. I 
can't remember any one who participated who is now living. I 
make these statements in the interest of truth, nothing ever hav- 
ing occurred to my knowledge, affecting personally our friendly 
relations. THOS. J. FRYAR. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this, the 3d day of May, 
1903. J. D. VARNELL, 

(Seal) Notary Public, Red River County, Texas. 

Rev. J. 31. Horton's Sworn Statement. 

State of Texas, Dallas County, April 30, 1903. 

Having seen a statement in J. B. Gambrell's handwriting that 
there was not a fiber of truth in the soldier story and pronounc- 
ing it a falsehood out of whale cloth, I am constrained in the 
interest of the Baptist cause and truth to make the following 
statement: 

I was born in Tippah County, Miss., 13 miles north of Ripley, 
Miss., in 1S48. I was baptized in the Providence Baptist Church 
in Tippah County, Miss., A. D. 1865. Was ordained to the Gospel 
Ministry, A. D. 1874. 

About 1870 or 1871 I met Bro. J. B. Gambrell for the first 
time, at the Tippah Association, held with the Academy Church, 
near Orizaba, about 20 miles from my home. He preached during 
the Association and in connection with this I heard it extensively 
talked amcug the brethren that he had captured during the war 
some Yankee soldiers and had thrown them in a well. This was 
considered a very cruel thing by those who spoke of it. All I 
heard speak of it condemned it as inexcusable. Some, however, 
mentioned that J. B. Gambrell claimed that he had to do it to 
keep himself and squad from being captured at the time. It 
was further commented on that J. B. Gambrell had captured 
a boat on the Mississippi River loaded with goods and had used 
them for his own benefit. This was common talk at that meeting. 
I never heard of anyone who denied it. The capture of the boat 
and the confiscation of the goods was condemned by all I heard 
speak of it. After this time I heard these two circumstances 
spoken of for years when his name came up in conversation. It 
was notorious in Tippah County, Miss.,, at that time and for years 
afterward. I have made the foregoing statement from a sense 
of duty. Nothing has ever occurred to my knowledge affecting 
the friendly relations of J. B. Gambrell and myself. I am, and 
have been a member of the Second Baptist Church of Dallas for 
the last six years. J. M. HORTON. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this, April 30, 1903. 

T. F. LEWIS, 

(Seal) Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas. 

F. M. Gober's Sworn Statement. 

My name is F. M. Gober. Am 61 years old. Was raised in 
Tippah County, Miss. Came to Texas in 1884. I went to school 
with J. B. Gambrell for several years. Both of us joined the 
Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church when 14 years of age and lived 
in that Church till he left that community in 1871 or 1872. I 
was in a different part of the army, but heard him spoken of 
as a brave Confederate scout. It was currently reported that he 
and his brother, Ira, and two or three others went beyond the 
Confederate lines across the river, and were fired on by the Fed- 
eral soldiers. That Ira was killed while the others escaped. The 
body was found by a widow and her daughter and given a decent 
burial. This led to the marriage of J. B. Gambrell and the young 
lady, his present wife. Later on J. B. Gambrell came to Missis- 
sippi and organized an independent company of scouts. It was 
commonly reported, and never denied, that he captured a steam- 



282 THE COMPLETE 



boat, confiscated the goods and appropriated to his own profit. 
The goods were hauled through the country and sold, such as 
he and his friends could not use. 

The Federals made an attempt to capture him at his father's 
house, but he eluded them by slipping through the floor into the 
cellar and as the Yankees entered the house he escaped, left 
Mississippi, went to where his wife's mother lived, remained there 
several months till things got quiet and returned and was or- 
dained to the ministry in the Pleasant Ridge Church. He left 
there in 1871 or 1872. That ended my personal acquaintance with 
him. J. B. Gambrell and I were always friends and this statement 
is made under oath under a sense of duty and from memory. 

F. M. GOBER. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 28th day of April, 
1903. C. R. HOSKINS, 

(Seal) J. P. and Ex-Officio Notary Public, Ellis Co., Texas. 

Sworn Statement of Mrs. Celestia A. Gofoer. 

I have known J. B. Gambrell from my childhood until he left 
our neighborhood near Orizaba, Miss., in 1871 or 1872. I make 
oath to the statements in my husband's statement, with one addi- 
tional statement. I saw three wagons loaded with the goods said 
to have been captured by J. B. Gambrell. These wagon 5 ? passed 
my father's house sometime in the early spring of 1865, going 
South, towards where J. B. Gambrell lived. Soon after J. B. Gam- 
brell's wife, mother and sisters, all come to Church dressed out 
and out in new goods, such as were not obtainable at that time 
in that part of the country. It was commonly remarked at 
Church and elsewhere, 'Almost any of us could have new dresses, 
hats and shoes if our husband, father or brother had robbed some 
merchants' steamboat." MRS. C. A. GOBER. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 28th day of April, 
1903. C. R. HOSKINS, 

(Seal) J. P. and Ex-Officio Notary Public, Ellis Co., Texas. 

Sworn Statement of Deacon J. M. Webb. 

My name is J. M. Webb. I was born January 2, 1847, in Tippah 
County, Miss., and lived there until about 1872, came to Texas 
in that year and settled at Milford, in Ellis County, where I now 
reside. My occupation is that of farmer and stock raiser. I am 
personally acquainted with J. B. Gambrell. I have known him 
ever since I was a boy 10 years old or about 46 years. I attended 
school with him when a bov at Orizaba, Tippah County, Miss., in 
about 1856-1857. I heard it told often that he captured some 
prisoners in Virginia and threw them in a well. I heard this 
rumor during or about the close of the war, 1861-5. I never 
heard it denied. I heard he captured a boat, from which he took 
several wagon loads of goods. Heard the goods belonged to the 
U. S. Government or Yankees and it was rumored that the goods 
belonged to George Chambers. I think was in April or May, I860. 
The matters were common talk in North Mississippi just after 
the close of the war, 61-65. Don't remember to have ever heard 
them denied. J- M. WEBB. 

The State of Texas, County of Ellis: 

I hereby certify that the foregoing were made and reduced 
to writing, subscribed to and sworn before me by J. M. Webb, of 
Ellis County, Texas, at my office, in the town of Milford, on this, 
April 28 1903. That said answers were made in response to the 
accompaning attached interrogatories. Witness my hand and seal 
of office this, April 28, 1903. H. N. O. DAVIS, 

(Seal) Notary Public, Ellis County, Texas. 

Brother Webb is a deacon in the Milford Baptist Church and 
Superintendent of the Sunday school. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 283 

Sworn Statement of T. E. Stewart. 

I was born in Tippah County, Miss., Oct. 25, 1845. I am a mem- 
ber of the Milford Baptist Church. I came to Milford, Ellis County, 
Texas, September, 1898. I have known J. B. Gambrell about 40 
years. It was a current report about his throwing the Yankees 
in the well. I never heard it denied. Sometime in May, 1865, I 
heard about his capturing- a Yankee boat of dry goods. It was 
afterwards found out to be a Southern boat. The goods were 
brought to the neighborhood and peddled out. John W. Lowery 
told me that after he learned that the goods belonged to a South- 
ern man he refused to peddle them out any longer. Caleb Fra- 
zier told me that he was running the blockade in time of the 
war and met J. B. Gambrell. He (Frazier) said he had on a pair 
of Cavalry Boots and Gambrell took them, making him pull them 
off. After the war, Gambrell was to preach and Frazier went to 
him and threatened to kill Gambrell if he did not pay him for 
the boots. Frazier said Gambrell afterwards paid him $10 for 
the boots. I never heard Frazier's statement denied. J. B. Gam- 
brell has always been counted of an overbearing, bullying nature. 

T. E. STEWART. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 28th day of April, 
1903. C. R. HOSKINS, 

(Seal) J. P. and Ex-Offlcio Notary Public, Ellis Co., Texas. 

Sworn Statement of Mrs. M. W. Stewart, Wife of T. E. Stewart. 

I was born in Tippah County, Miss., in 1853. I came to Texas 
with my husband, T. E. Stewart, in 1898. I am a member of the 
Milford, Ellis County, Baptist Church. My maiden name was 
Mollie Cox. I used to go to school with J. B. Gambrell at Orizaba, 
Tippah County, Miss., when he was a young man and I a young 
girl. I have heard him preach at Academy Church. He had the 
reputation of being fussy. It was the general talk about putting 
the Yankees in the well. All the people thought it was so inhuman 
and cruel to treat prisoners that way. He never did deny doing 
it that I ever heard of. 

He captured a boat load of goods and left some of them 
at his Aunt Sallie Gambrell's home. She was our neighbor. My 
stepmother, Mrs. J. H. Cox, went there and bought calico to 
make my little sister and myself a bonnet a piece, but when 
my stepmother heard it was not a Yankee boat, but a Confed- 
erate boat, that belonged to Mr. Geo. Chambers, she did not 
want us to wear the bonnets. It was stolen goods, she said. 
But we told her that she had not stolen them, but paid for them. 
We had nothing to wear but homespun and were very proud of 
our new bonnets. We were children, but heard the old people 
talk about it when they came to our home. They all thought 
it very wrong for J. B. Gambrell to take the boat and sell the 
goods. They all said it was stealing. He gave his Aunt Sallie 
Gambrell and her three girls a dress apiece out of the goods. 

MRS. M. W.STEWART. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 28th day of April, 
1903. C. R. HOSKINS, 

(Seal) J. P. and Ex-Offlcio Notary Public, Ellis Co., Texas. 

There are scores, yes hundreds, and we believe thousands of 
men and women now living who will make oath that these 
"stories" were not started by 'saloon men," as J. B. Gambrell 
would have the people believe. For twenty-five years before 
the prohibition campaign in Mississippi these reports were rife 
and those who knew J. B. Gambrell have "believed" them, not 
only for a "second," but for full forty years. We ask our breth- 
ren to investigate the slanderous statements J. B. Gambrell sends 
out constantly about the most faithful Baptists in Texas before 
they hold us as "Anti-Missionaries," "Devil's side-trackers" and 
'Liners up with Mormons," etc. 



284 THE COMPLETE 

We confine ourselves mainly to J. B. Gambrell by name, be- 
cause he is the mouthpiece of others who lack his courage and hide 
behind him, to do the cause of truth and justice harm. We have 
brought with us the affidavits above with much else which we 
will gladly present to a committee fairly chosen at the Con- 
vention. The Convention may appoint men mutually acceptable 
to both parties, or if the Convention does not wish to take cog- 
nizance of the issues in Texas, we will select any number of 
men and Gambrell and his co-adjutors may select a like number 
and we will submit all the facts for their consideration. We made 
this proposition at the Texas Baptist General Convention at Dallas 
in 1899, but Gambrell hid himself behind the plea that a com- 
mittee could not settle "matters of doctrine." We did not then 
and do not now propose to settle "matters of doctrine," but there 
are issues of truth, veracity and good morals that good men can 
settle and "matters of doctrine" will take care of themselves. If 
there be no time during the session of the Convention, we hold 
ourselves ready for a full investigation at any time and place. 
We are determined to end this shameful state of things if in 
our power to do so. The men and women whose affidavits we have 
presented are among the most reputable citizens of Texas, and 
if he ever assails their veracity we will prove him again a tra- 
ducer of godly men and women by enough affidavits to silence his 
foul defamations effectually. This will at least test the courage 
of his convictions. He boasts of being a "fighter." But he was 
a "scout" in the army, and has been a "scout" among the Baptists 
of Texas. He is a "fighter" but never in the open. 

Some Baptist papers believing these villainous slanders, have 
gravely proposed "to bear with us, hoping that association with 
them will reclaim us." Indeed! We are free born and stand 
on our integrity as Baptists and sons of God, feeling that those 
in the dark cannot grant favors worth having and those in- 
formed need themselves the indulgence they offer to us. 

S. J. ANDERSON, 



H. 


B. 


PENDER, 


J. 


M. 


GLASS, 


A. 


D. 


BROOKS, 


R. 


L. 


BELL, 


C. 


J. 


WASHMAN 


c. 


H. 


GIPSON, 



Members of the Board. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 285 

CHAPTER XXVI. 

HOW THE PERJURY CASES CAME TO LIGHT. 

Testimony Continued. 

When Henry Evans testified for Plaintiff that Defendant 
Slaughter said to him on. Friday noon at San Antonio, 1897: "I 
tell you, Brother Henry, we are determined to down that man 
S. A. Hayden," and when Defendant Slaughter swore that he had 
"never seen Henry Evans," and that Evans' statement was "of 
whole cloth manufactured," Plaintiff's attorneys prepared inter 
rogatories for about twenty prominent persons of both Board 
Party and Church Party men as to "the reputation of Henry 
Evans for truth and veracity." Under the law, the Defendants 
were allowed five days to prepare cross-interrogatories. The 
astute counsel for Defendants saw that Defendant Slaughter was, 
as was Defendant Gambrell in the $5 oath, in danger of the penal 
code against perjury. Accordingly, Ed Cornwell was sent by 
G. G. Wright, attorney and son-in-law of Defendant Slaughter, to 
procure, if possible, testimony adverse to Mr. Henry Evans. Corn- 
well visited these witnesses in Hamilton, Bosque and Brown 
Counties, and other persons where Henry Evans was known. 
And although the names furnished were taken promiscuously 
from leading Church Party and Board Party Baptists in the 
State, every solitary one of them swore that nothing against the 
reputation of Henry Evans had ever been heard by any of them! 

But the denial by Defendant Slaughter of ever having known 
his old schoolmate Henry Evans, who had been Slaughter's guest 
at Slaughter's residence in 1895, created a sensation in Dallas 
next to the discovery of the plot to bribe the jury. And some of 
the lawyers in the city who knew of Defendant Slaughter's rec- 
ord, voluntarily suggested to Defendant's attorneys an investiga- 
tion of that record in the Palo Pinto County court. Outside at- 
torneys generally deplored the universal false swearing of the 
Defendants as an obstruction to the administration of justice 
in the Dallas courts. 



286 THE COMPLETE 

The attorneys for Plaintiff immediately obtained certified cop- 
ies of the records of Palo Pinto County, showing that the indict- 
ments had been obtained and were still on the records, untried. 
These records were in hand to be used on the fourth trial. De- 
fendant Slaughter was asked what he was going to do about it, 
and his reply, I hear, was that "He supposed he would have to 
stand it." But the third provable perjury, the case of Henry 
Evans, was forthcoming, and Defendant Slaughter's attorney and 
son-in-law G. G. Wright was glad to pay the $5,500, which he 
did. It was understood between the attorneys, Plaintiff learns, 
that personally Defendant Slaughter should know nothing about 
it. This was to avoid accord and satisfaction. Accordingly his sons 
telegraphed at the ranches in the West, came to Dallas, made 
notes in the National Exchange Bank for the $5,500, and paid it 
over to Plaintiff's attorneys, which, as stated, was an ambush to 
avoid accord and satisfaction. Then Defendant Slaughter's name 
was stricken from the list of Defendants, and the entry made on 
the back of the Petition, "Fourth Original Amendment." When 
the Third Trial opened, the attorneys for Defendants were greatly 
surprised that Defendant Slaughter, their paymaster, was not 
named, so well had the secret been kept between Attorney G. G. 
Wright and attorneys for Plaintiff. Under this surprise, the at- 
torneys for Defendants asked for time for consultation. They 
retired to a room, and after about thirty minutes, returned, evi- 
dently relieved by the fact that Defendant Cranfill was worth 
over $100,000, and they still had financial backing, their fees 
shifting from Defendant Slaughter to Defendant Cranfill. 

The following records from Palo Pinto County explain fully 
why Attorney G. G. Wright was willing to pay $5,500 for the 
erasure of the name of his father-in-law, Defendant Slaughter, 
from Plaintiff's Petition. 

It will be seen that if every other of the thirty Defendants 
had done their part as well as Defendants Cranfill and Slaughter, 
Plaintiff would have all the $100,000 asked for in his Petition, 
and more too. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 287 

C. C. Slaughter Twice Indicted for Perjury. 

Indictment No. 457. — In the name and by the authority of the 
State of Texas, the Grand Jurors of the County of Palo Pinto 
in the State of Texas, good and lawful men, duly elected, tried, 
impanelled, sworn and charged by the District Judge at the No- 
vember Term, A. D. 1878 ,of the District Court of said county, 
to inquire into and true presentment make of all offenses therein 
committed against the penal laws of the State of Texas, upon 
their oaths in said court do say and present that heretofore, on- 
to-wit, the 23rd day of May, A. D. 1878, in the County of Palo 
Pinto and State of Texas, there was then and there pending in 
the District Court of Palo Pinto County a certain civil suit, 
wherein Joel McKee was Plaintiff and C. C. Slaughter, G. W. 
Slaughter were Defendants, and the Grand Jurors aforesaid on 
their oaths aforesaid further present that on the trial of the said 
issues so joined between the said Joel McKee and the said C. C. 
Slaughter, upon the trial of the said suit, it then and there be- 
came and was a material question to whom a certain note, made 
and executed by said Joel McKee and made payable to W. H. 
Cowden, belonged at a certain date in the years 1870 and 1872, 
and the said C. C. Slaughter on the trial of the said cause, being 
duly and legally sworn as a witness for the Defendant before 
the said court in the said State and County on the said 23rd day 
of May, 1878, after being so sworn as aforesaid, not having the 
fear of God before his eyes, nor regarding the laws, being moved 
and seduced by the instigation of the devil and contriving and 
intending to pervert the due course of law and justice, and un- 
justly to aggrieve the said McKee and the public in the said is- 
sue, and to deprive the said McKee and the public of the benefit 
of said suit, then and there on the trial of said cause upon his 
oath aforesaid falsely, corruptly, knowingly, wilfully, deliberately, 
maliciously and feloniously before the said court as aforesaid, did 
depose and swear, among other things, in substance in the effect 
following; that is to say, that during the said year 1870 he, the 
said C. C. Slaughter, did buy and purchase the aforesaid note 
from the said W. H. Cowden, and did then and there at the time 
of said purchase pay the said Cowden the sum of Two Hundred 
Dollars in cash for said note, and so that the said note did then 
and there become the property and was the property of the said 
C. C. Slaughter at the said time in the year 1870, and was at that 
time, and at the time a certain suit was brought by the said 
C. C. Slaughter and G. W. Slaughter against said Joel McKee 
In the District Court of Palo Pinto County in the year 1872; the 
property of said C. C. Slaughter; whereas, in truth and in fact, 
the said C. C. Slaughter at the time he took the said oath on 
the trial of the said cause of Joel McKee against C. C. Slaughter, 
G. W. Slaughter and at the time he deposed on the trial thereof, 
well knew all the facts concerning the matters and things then 
in controversy in said suit, but that he then and there well knew 
that the said note during the entire year 1870 was the property 
of W. H. Cowden, and that he, the said Cowden, had not sold 
it to him, the said Slaughter, and that it did not belong to him, 
the said Slaughter, and that he, the said Slaughter, had not pur- 
chased the said note from the said Cowden at any time during 
the year 1870, and that it did not belong to the said Slaughter at 
the time of the rendition of the said judgment in the cause of 
C. C. Slaughter and G. W. Slaughter against Joel McKee, tried 
and decided in the District Court of Palo Pinto County in the 
year 1872 as aforesaid, and that it was at the rendition of the 
said judgment the property of said W. H. Cowden, and so the 
Grand Jurors aforesaid on their oaths aforesaid do say that the 
said C. C. Slaughter did, on the said 23rd day of May, 1878, in 
said State and County, kncrwingly, wilfully, maliciously and delib- 
erately commit deliberate and wilful perjury, contrary to law 
and against the peace and dignity of the State. 

J. A. LAVERTY, Foreman Grand Jury. 
Endorsed: No. 457. State of Texas vs. C. C. Slaughter; Of- 
fence, Perjury; State Witnesses, Joel McKee, W. H. Cowden, F. 
Cowden, Wm. Metcalf, J. H. Bell. Filed Nov. 22, 1878. 

GEO. C. LEWIS Clerk. 



288 THE COMPLETE 

C. C. Slaughter Again Indicted for Perjury. 

Indictment No. 458. — In the name and by the authority of the 
State of Texas, the Grand Jurors of the County of Palo Pinto, in 
the State of Texas, good and lawful men, duly elected, tried, 
impanneled, sworn and charged by the District Judge at the No- 
vember term, A. D. 1878, of the District Court of said County, 
to inquire into and true presentment make of all offenses therein 
committed against the penal laws of the State of Texas, upon 
their oaths in said court, do say and present, that heretofore, cm, 
to-wit, the 23rd day of May, A. D. 1878, in the County of Palo 
Pinto and State of Texas, there was then and there pending in 
the District Court of the said Palo Pinto County, a certain civil 
suit wherein Joel McKee was Plaintiff and C. C. Slaughter and 
G. W. Slaughter were Defendants, and the Grand Jurors afore- 
said, on their oaths aforesaid, further present, that upon the trial 
of the said issue so joined between the said Joel McKee and C. C. 
Slaughter and G. W. Slaughter, upon the trial of the said suit, 
it then and there became and was a material question whether 
a certain payment of Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars charged 
to have been made by one William Metcalf to said C. C. Slaughter 
was made before or after the rendition of a certain judgment ren- 
dered in the District Court of Palo Pinto County, Texas, A. D. 1872, 
wherein said C. C. Slaughter and G. W. Slaughter were Plaintiff 
and said Joel McKee was Defendant, and the said C. C. Slaughter 
being then and there on the said 23rd day of May, 1878, in the 
said County and State duly and legally sworn as a witness for 
the Defendants on the said trial of said cause, and being so 
sworn as aforesaid, not having the fear of God before his eyes, 
nor regarding the law, being moved and seduced by the instiga- 
tion of the devil, and contriving and intending to prevent the due 
course of law and justice and unjustly aggrieve the said McKee 
and the public in the said issue, and to deprive the said McKee 
and the public of the benefit of said suit, then and there on the 
trial of said suit, upon his oath aforesaid, falsely, corruptly, 
knowingly, wilfully, deliberately and maliciously, before the said 
court as aforesaid did depose and swear, among other things, in 
substance in the effect following; that is to say, that the said 
William Metcalf had paid and delivered to him, the said C. C. 
Slaughter, the said sum of Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars be- 
fore the date and rendition of the judgment in the cause of C. C. 
Slaughter and G. W. Slaughter against Joel McKee, tried and 
decided in the District Court of Palo Pinto County, in the year 
1872; whereas, in truth and in fact, the said C. C. Slaughter, at 
the time he took the said oath on the trial of the said cause of 
Joel McKee against C .C. Slaughter and G. W. Slaughter, and at 
the time he deposed on the trial thereof, well knew all the facts 
concerning the matters and things then in controversy in said 
suit, and that he then and there well knew the said William 
Metcalf had not in fact paid the said sum of Four Hundred and 
Fifty Dollars to the said C. C. Slaughter before the rendition of 
the judgment in the cause of C. C. Slaughter and G. W. Slaughter 
against Joel McKee, tried and decided in the District Court of 
Palo Pinto County in the year 1872, but that the said Slaughter 
then and there well knew that the said William Metcalf had in 
truth and in fact paid the said sum of Four Hundred and Fifty 
Dollars to the said C. C. Slaughter after the rendition of the said 
judgment in the said case of C. C. Slaughter and G. W. Slaughter 
against Joel McKee, decided in the District Court of Palo Pinto 
in the year 1872 as aforesaid; and so the Grand Jurors aforesaid, 
upon their oaths aforesaid, do say that the said C. C. Slaughter 
did on the said 23rd day of May, 1878, in the said County and 
State, did then and there unlawfully, knowingly, deliberately and 
feloniously commit the crime of perjury, contrary to the law and 
against the peace and dignity of the State. 

J. E. LAVERTY, Foreman Grand Jury. 

Endorsed: No. 458; State of Texas vs. C. C. Slaughter; Of- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 289 

fense, Perjury. State's witnesses, Joel McKee, Wm. Metcalf, Col. 
Nicholson, Chas. Seward. Parker Conntv. 

Filed Nov. 22, 1878. GEORGE C. LEWIS, Clerk. 

Bond required in the sum of $2,000. 

J. R. FLEMMING, Judge 12th Judicial District. 

Capias. — The State of Texas, to the Sheriff or any Constable 
of Palo Pinto County — Greeting: You are hereby commanded 
to take the body of C. C. Slaughter and him safely keep so that 
you may have him before the Honorable District Court of Palo 
Pinto County, Texas, at the Court House thereof in the town of 
Palo Pinto on the 11 Monday after the first Monday in March, 
A. D. 1879, then and there to answer the State of Texas in a 
charge by indictment, presented by the Grand Jurors of the 
County of Palo Pinto at the November term, A. D. 1878, of the 
District Court of said County, wherein the said C. C. Slaughter 
is charged with the offense of perjury. Herein fail not, but due 
service and return hereof make as the law requires. Witness, 
George C. Lewis, Clerk of the District Court of Palo Pinto County 
aforesaid, with the seal of the court 'hereon impressed. This 
fifth dav of December, A. D. 1878. 

Attest: GEO. C. LEWIS, Clerk of the District Court of Palo 
Pinto Ccruntv. (Seal.) 

Endorsed: Bond $2,000, No. 458. The State of Texas vs. C. C. 
Slaughter, Capias. Issued fifth day of December, A. D. 1878. 
GEO. C. LEWIS, Clerk Dist. Court, Palo Pinto County. 

Sheriff's Return: Came to hand the fifth day of December, 
A. D. 1878, and executed the fifth day of December, 1878, by ar- 
resting the within named Defendant, and taking bond. Arrest, 
$1, bond $1; total $2. 

J. T. WILSON, Sheriff, Palo Pinto County. 

Bond. 

The State of Texas, County of Palo Pinto. — Know all men by 
these presents that I, C. C. Slaughter as principal, and P. E. 
Slaughter and J. W. Lynn, his sureties, are held and firmly bound 
unto the State of Texas in the sum of Two Thousand Dollars to 
the payment of which well and truly to be made we bind our- 
selves, our heirs and legal representatives jointly and severally, 
firmly by these presents. In witness whereof we have hereto 
subscribed our names and affix our scrolls for seal this the 5th 
day of December. A. D. 1878. The conditions of the above obli- 
gations are as follows, to-wit: Whereas, the above bounden C. 
C. Slaughter has been arrested by J. T. Wilson. Sheriff of Palo 
Pinto County, by virtue of a Capias issued by the Clerk of the 
District Court of Palo Pinto County, now if the said C. C. Slaugh- 
ter shall well and truly make his personal appearance at the next 
term of the District Court for said County of Palo Pinto, to be 
holden at the Court House thereof on the 11th Monday after the 
1st Monday in March. A. D. 1879. to answer the State of Texas 
upon a charge of perjury against the peace and dignity of the 
State, as set forth in the bill of indictment against him therefor, 
found by the Grand Jurors of said County at the November term, 
of said District Court. A. D. "1878, and then and there appear 
from day to day and from term to term until discharged by du« 
course of law; then this obligation to be null and void, otherwise 
to remain in full force. 

C. C. SLAUGHTER (Seal). 

P. E. SLAUGHTER (Seal). 

J. W. LYNN (Seal). 

The above bond examined and approved this fifth day of De- 
cember, A. D. 1878. 

J. T. WILSON, Sheriff of Palo Pinto County, Texas. 

Motion to Quash Indictments Nos. 457 and 458. 

The State of Texas 

vs. Nos. 457 and 458, C. C. Slaughter. 

The State of Texas, County of Palo Pinto — In the two causes 
above named comes the Defendant therein and moves the Court 



290 THE COMPLETE 

to Quash the indictments and hold the same for naught, for the 
following reasons: 

1st. No offense is charged in said indictment against the 
laws of the State. 

2nd. It is not shown in said indictments that the matters 
about which the perjury is alleged to have been committed was 
material in the. trial of the cause. 

3rd. It is not alleged or shown in said indictments how the 
matters about which the perjury is alleged to have been com- 
mitted were material in the trial of the cause. 

4th. The proceeding in which the perjury is alleged to have 
been committed is not averred in said indictments to have been 
in judicial proceedings or due course of justice, as required by 
law. 

5th. The indictments do not aver and show that the testi- 
mony about which the perjury is alleged to have been commit- 
ted was material to the issue or point in hand as between the 
parties. 

6th. The said indictments do not aver or show that the oath 
under which perjury is alleged to have been committed was ad- 
ministered by one having authority to so administer said oath. 
The mere allegation or averment in the indictment that the wit- 
ness was legally sworn is not sufficient. The averment should 
be that the oath was administered by one having authority of 
law to administer it. 

7th. To make a good indictment for perjury there must b« 
an averment of competency to administer the oath, and where 
there is no such averment the indictment is bad under the law. 

8th. The indictments in these causes do not aver or show 
the jurisdiction of the court, over the subject matter in which 
the oath is alleged to have been taken, and about which th« 
perjury alleged is charged to have been committed. 

WATTS & McCALL & McCALL, for Defendant. 

Motion to Quash Considered. 

The State of Texas vs. No. 457, C. C. Slaughter. 

Tuesday, July 8, 1878 (1879). 

This day came on to be heard the Defendant's mother herein 
filed to quash the indictment in this cause, and the court, after 
hearing said motion and the argument of counsel, is of opinion 
that the law is in favor of said motion; it is therefore considered 
and ordered by the court that the said motion be and the same 
is hereby sustained, and that the indictment be herein quashed 
and held for naught. It is further ordered by the court that 
the Defendant herein, C. C. Slaughter be held in custody to await 
the action of the Grand Jury of Palo Pinto County. 

The same ruling of the court was held as to the indictment 
No. 458, under date Tuesday, July 8, 1879, under the following 
bond to appear at the next term of court after the Grand Jury 
has had time to revise the indictment so as to make it conform 
to the requirments of law, under a bond of $1,000, as follows: 

, Bond. 

The State of Texas vs. C. C. Slaughter. 

Tuesday, July 8, 1879. 
; This day came into open court C. C. Slaughter, the Defendant 
in the above cause, as principal, and W. B. Slaughter, G. W. 
Slaughter and P. E. Slaughter, as sureties, and acknowledged 
themselves jointly and severally to owe and be indebted to the 
State of Texas in the penal sum of One Thousand Dollars, the 
amount fixed by the court for the payment of which well and 
and administrators to be levied of their goods, lands, tenements 
and administrators to be levied of their gods, lands, tenements 
and estates, but to be void nevertheless upon condition that C. C. 
Slaughter shall well and truly make his personal appearance be- 
fore the District Court of Palo Pinto County, Texas, now in ses- 
sion to await the action of the Grand Jury of Palo Pinto County 
on a charge of perjury, then and there to remain and not to de- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 291 

part without leave of the court until discharged by due course 

of law, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. 

Filed Nov. 21. 1878 GEO. C. LEWIS. Clerk. 

Certificate of Clerk. 

State of Texas, County of Palo Pinto — I, R. A. Peak, Clerk of 
the District Court in and for said County and State, do hereby 
certify the above is a true and correct copy with the endorse- 
ments thereom of the indictments, capiases, bonds, and motion to 
quash indictments and the Minutes of the Court in Causes Nos. 
457 and 458, styled, "The State of Texas vs. C. C. Slaughter," as 
same appears on file and in Minute Book of said Court in my 
office. Witness my haml and the seal of office at Palo Pinto, 
Texas, this 6th day of February, A. D. 1903. R. A. PEAK, 

(Seal.) District Clerk, Palo Pinto County, Texas. 

Statement of the Clerk. 

Palo Pinto, Texas, March 7, 1903. — Judgment was rendered 
(1872) in favor of Plaintiff (C. C. Slaughter), but later, in the 
1878 trial, that judgment was set aside. The judgment in the 
year 1872 was held for naught. R. A. PEAK, D. C. 

Indicted for Cattle Theft, and Acquitted. 

Indictment No.. 436. — In the name and by the authority of the 
State of Texas, the Grand Jurors of the County of Palo Pinto, in 
the State of Texas, good and lawful men, duly elected, tried, im- 
panelled, sworn and charged by District Judge at the November 
ter, A. D. 1878 of the District Court of said County, to inquire 
into and true presentment make of all offenses therein committed 
against the penal laws of the State of Texas, upon their oaths in 
said court, do say and present, that heretofore, on, to-wit, the 
25th day of June, A. D. 1878, in the County of Palo Pinto and the 
State of Texas, C. C. Slaughter did then and there one certain 
cattle not his own, but the property cf B. F. Bell, from the pos- 
session of the owner, without the consent of the owner, with in- 
tent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to ap- 
propriate it to his own use and benefit, did then and there fraud- 
ulently and feloniously take, steal and carry away, contrary to 
the law and against the peace and dignity of the State. 

J. E. LAVERTY, Foreman Grand Jury. 

Endorsed: No. 436, State of Texas vs. C. C. Slaughter; Of- 
fense, theft 1 cattle; State's witnesses, B. F. Bell, James Owens. 

Turning State's Evidence by A. W. Morris. 

Mr. A. W. Morris, fearing exposure and prosecution, made the 
following affidavit: 

On the day the jury was impaneled, Detective Ed Cornwell 
joined the juror, W. F. Morris, on the way from the court house 
to Morris' barber shop on Poydras street, in the rear of the 
American National Bank, and informed him that he would be re- 
warded if he would "stand pat." That night W. F. Morris in- 
form-ed me, who lived with him at 925 Ross avenue, what Corn- 
well had said. W. F. Morris is my son. 

After this Conwell told me, A. W. Morris, that he was au- 
thorized to pay some indefinite amount of money, which Corn- 
well did not name. The juror, W. F. Morris, told me that he 
"ought to have $5,000." 

On two nights my son, W. F. Morris, and I, went out in a va- 
cant lot back of his place at 925 Ross avenue, where we could be 
sure that no one would hear us, and talked the matter over. He 
told me how the trial was progressing, how the jury stood, and 
urged me to hurry Cornwell up and decide what he, W. F. Morris, 
was to get. He stood for $5,000, but as he said he believed that 
others were being bought, I suggested to him to take $1,000, as 



292 THE COMPLETE 

he might sit there and get nothing. Especially as he said all but 
two or three of the jury were for giving a big verdict. He wanted 
me to impress Cornwell and Wright that most of the jury stood 
for a high verdict— $75,000 or $100,000. 

One day, late in the evening, after the workmen had quit 
work, Cornwell had told me he would be out that evening. I 
saw him drive up on the same lot that I had gone to with Billy 
and went to him. Learning that there was no one in the house, 
he got out of the buggy,, just let the horse stand on the lot, and 
we both went into the house, there being no one there but our- 
selves. We were discussing the amount to be paid. He said he 
would get all he could, but did not know how much. He kept 
saying "I will see the old man," but did not say who. 

When Jake Sitton was arrested for approaching Juror Wil- 
liam Seal, offering him $50, John T. Penn, merchant tailor, under 
C. C. Slaughter's office, said to W. F. Morris, as he related it to 
me, that "C. C. Slaughter said that he would not think of offer- 
ing a man less than $1,000 to hang the jury." This was to show 
how absurd it was to suppose that Sitton, for $50, was acting for 
Slaughter. When Penn reported this to W. F. Morris he con- 
cluded that $1,000 was the amount Juror W. F. Morris was to 
receive for hanging the jury. I urged Ed Cornwell to be definite in 
the amount he proposed to pay for hanging the jury, but Corn- 
well would never fix the amount. Later Cornwell agreed to get 
$750 — $500 for my son and $250 for me — and more if he could. 
In the meantime Juror W. F. Morris was building a house at 925 
Ross avenue. He had, before the trial began, secured a loan of 
$800 from the Exchange National Bank of Dallas, securing the 
same by a lien on the house and lot that he was building. One 
day, perhaps about the middle of the trial, Ed Cornwell came to 
the house, 925 Ross avenue, and motioned with his hand to me, 
while I was talking with my brother, James M Morris, uncle to 
the juror, to follow Cornwell. Cornwell walked about fifty feet 
and stopped. I left my brother and followed Cornwell to the 
telephone pole, when Cornwell handed me $500 in paper money — 
twenties, tens, and perhaps two fives. Cornwell then walked off, 
and I returned to my brother at the workbench and showed him 
the money. My brother, James M. Morris, remarked to me "Not 
to make a fool of myself and get into trouble," or words to that 
effect. Then we went into the house and made a light and count- 
ed the money. Later Cornwell ga,ve me $100 more in green- 
backs. Still later Cornwell gave another $100 — five twenty-dollar 
gold pieces — making $700 in all. During the trial the house was 
being built, and several workmen were there, and Cornwell sug- 
gested to me that "it was dangerous for us to be seen together 
at that house, as some of Kayden's lawyers lived out there," but 
did not say who. It was then agreed that we meet on Peak 
street at night. At the appointed time Cornwell drove on Peak 
street, between Flora and Ross. I got into the buggy with him 
and drove several streets, and finally to Ross avenue. Then we 
parted; I got out of the buggy and walked off. 

As both the juror, W. F. Morris, and I had supposed $1,000 
would be paid for W. F. Morris' hanging the jury, and as Ed 
Cornwell had paid $700, we concluded that Ed Cornwell was keep- 
ing back part of the money for himself. Failing to get anything 
definite out of Cornwell, I went to G. G. Wright and told him that 
Ed Cornwell had failed to pay me more than $700. Wright said 
"Cornwell must do right, or he would." Failing to get it out of 
Cornwell, I kept going to Gilbert Wright, five or six times in all, 
in "Wright's office, and finally Wright paid me $50, with the un- 
derstanding that if Cornwell paid me $50 I should return Wright's 
$50 to him. This made in all $750 paid to me, of which I kept 
$40, being two of the twenty-dollar bills of the last $50, paid by 
G. G. Wright, $710 going to Juror W. F. Morris, as follows: 
Fence around the house, over $100; well and pump, $41.50; barn, 
about $16; window curtains, window shades, linoleum, counter- 
panes, tablecloths, napkins, etc., from Thompson Bros., about 
$30; two bedsteads and springs, bought of Ryan, on Elm street, 
$31; carpets, from Ryan, $14; cook stove, from Huey & Philp, 
$15; refrigerator, bought at Lake's hardware store, $20; grocer- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 293 

ies, bought at Live Oak Store, $7.20; meat, from Thrawl, butcher, 
$7.75; screens for doors and windows, from Thompson, hardware, 
$6.60; gasoline stove, of Mahan hardware store, $5.50; feed for 
horse, $4.40; hinges for barn and gates, 75c; nails, from Thompson, 
25c; watch for W. F. Morris, from Samuels, $20; watch for Mrs. 
W. F. Morris, from Samuels, $8.50; dishes, from Arcade, $14; two 
lamps, Arcade, $4; cash in currency to W. F. Morris, at one time 
$140, in gold at another time $40; paid Mrs. W. F. Morris, $10; 
clock, at Robertson's, $9; one set knives and forks, Robertson's, 
$7; one set teaspoons, Robertson's $1.50; toilet soap, comb, Ap- 
person's, 50c; curtain rings, etc., Thomson's, $14.25; two blue ware 
cooking vessels, Thomson's about $10; two flour bins, Thomson's, 
about $3.75; molding for four rooms, from K. Shields, $6.40; three 
cuspidors, Thomson's $3.75; window screen, Dallas Screen Co., 
$1.40; wood saw and ax, $1.75; lap robe, 85c; hitch reins, $1; pad, 
25c; whip, 50c; snaps, 10c; lantern, 40c; meat saw, 25c; and many 
other things, with something paid to the laborers, a total of $710. 
Mr. Powers, with Murphy & Bolanz, engineered Billy's loan 
from Royal Ferris, and O. K'd all checks paid out for work on 
the building, all of which were presented to me, who was identi- 
fied at the bank by W. F. Morris. I was wholly without money, 
except money I got from Cornwell and Wright. W. F. Morris 
drew two checks .on the Exchange National Bank, one for, I 
think, $100, and the other for $50, for C. E. Barglebaugh, to pay 
for material. Barglebaugh left, and that made me paymaster. 
The men had quit work, and I employed them and paid them out 
of money which I drew from the bank on Billy's checks. This 
was on the house. The items I have named were paid out of the 
money I got from Cornwell and Wright. 

When I received from Cornwell $500, I paid $140 of it to Billy, 
who said he deposited $100 of it in the American National Bank. 
Billy had secured a loan from Royal A. Ferris of $800, to be paid 
semi-annually, in installments. Instead of depositing the $100 
paid him by me in Mr. Ferris' bank, Billy put it in Slaughter's 
bank, and later he told me he drew it out to make his first pay- 
ment to the Exchange National Bank. This deposit in the Amer- 
ican National Bank of $100 was made pending the trial. The day 
I paid Billy the $40 in gold we went to the Moline Co., and he 
bought of Mr. Watts a buggy and harness for $47.50. 

I and Ed Cornwell were to meet one night at the Fair Grounds. 
I went, but did not see Cornwell. I afterward met Cornwell, and 
Cornwell said he had gone, and mentioned persons whom I had 
seen at the Fair Grounds that night. 

G. G. Wright said to me during these five or six visits that 
Ed Cornwell must pay me the money; that, "by G — d, if Cornwell 
didn't do what was right he would pay it himself;" that "I must 
never tell a word about it, and if I did he, Wright, would swear 

that it was a d d lie." I informed Dick Beard, the partner 

of Cornwell, that if "they didn't mind I would hollow." Beard 
didn't seem to understand what I meant, showing that Cornwell 
had not let Beard into his game, and from that fact I and my son, 
W. F. Morris, concluded that Cornwell kept it a secret from 
Beard, so as to keep all the moniey he could for himself. But 
Beard evidently told Cornwell what I had said, for Cornwell vis- 
ited the juror twice after I spoke about it to Beard. On the day 
that I visited S. A. Hayden in his office, W. F. Morris was seen 
coming down from the steps of C. C. Slaughter and G. G. Wright's 
office. Louis V. Noguiera, bookkeeper for Burk & Co., informed 
iroe; also G. G. Wright told me of this visit of W. F. Morris to 
Slaughter and Wright's office. W. F. Morris told me during the 
trial that Slaughter's boys, who were going away on a visit, came 
to the shop and told him good-bye and said, "Look out for the 
old man's interest." 

I and my daughter-in-law, Mrs. W. F. Morris, talked the mat- 
ter of Cornwell's paying the money over several times. After I 
gave this information to S. A. Hayden and he had gone to my son, 
W. F. Morris, Cornwell talked with me twice, and offered to pay 
me to leave the State. He asked me to meet him out in the 
country, but I declined. He asked me to meet him at Carruth's 



294 THE COMPLETE 

Switch, six miles north of Dallas, on the Central Railway, where 
the bailiffs would not see me board the train. He offered to give 
me $45 to pay my way to where I wanted to go, but he said: "I 
pledge you my word, on the honor of a K. of P., that I will send 
you the money." He said "he could not give me more than $45, be- 
cause it was Sunday and Gilbert Wright was out of town." That 
evening about dark I phoned C. C. Slaughter, to know where 
Wright was. Slaughter said Wright was at home. Monday 
morning I called to see Wright. I told Wright that Cornwell had 
wanted me to take $45 and leave the country, but that I had re- 
fused. Wright said, "I don't blame you. We all live here in 
town and this can be attended to right here in this office, as well 
as anywhere." Wright admitted to Andy Gray, so Andy Gray 
told me, that he had said this to me. 

W. F. Morris told me that a clerk in the American National 
Bank had consulted with Mr. Shutte, the partner of W. F. Mor- 
ris, about hanging the jury. 

My son and I had a disagreement, and we are now estranged 
from each other. James M. Morris, uncle of the juror, is ac- 
quainted with the bribery transaction in a general way. My son, 
W. F. Morris, didn't want his Uncle James to know anything 
about it. 

I have orders written by myself in my daybook from Mrs. W. 
F. Morris (my daughter-in-law, wife of Juror W. F. Morris), of 
articles she wanted, and I would come down town and get them. 
I have receipts for part of them. 

I went to see Rev. George W. Truett at his residence while 
the jury was out. I told him I had come to see him about the 
Hayden-Cranfill case. He said: "Brother, do not say anything 
that will compromise yourself." I hesitated, but finally told him 
that they had gotten him, Truett, out, but afterward had to put 
him back in order to save Slaughter. That is what my boy told 
me. 

My son, W. F. Morris, told me that when they all voted, in 
order to keep down suspicion, he was to vote for a judgment 
against Slaughter and the other fellow was to hang the jury; 
then, when the other fellow voted for a judgment against Slaugh- 
ter, Billy would hang the jury. Billy said those who hung the 
jury were willing to bring a verdict against any or all the de- 
fendants except Slaughter. Slaughter was the man they wanted 
to get out. They didn't care for sticking the rest of them. Ed Corn 
well, Gilbert Wright, my son and myself are all members of the 
Knights of Pythias, and Ed Cornwell wanted to put all his nego- 
tiations with me "on the honor of a K. of P." I did not consider 
that it was a K. of P. affair. The above is a true statement of 
the facts, as far as I can recall them. 

(Signed) A. W. Morris. 

State of Texas, County of Dallas: Before me, the undersigned 
authority, on this day personally appeared A. W. Morris, made 
known to me by Rev. S. A. Hayden, and the said A. W. Morris, 
being by me first duly sworn, on his oath deposes and says that 
the matters and facts set forth in this page, styled in manuscript 
"page 5," and four other pages attached thereto, styled respec- 
tively "page 1," "page 2," "page 3" and "page 4," are true, to 
the best of his knowledge and belief, and thereupon acknowledged 
the above signature as his signature. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and af- 
fixed my official seal, this the 31st day of January, A. D. 1903. 
John C. Robertson, Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 295 

CHAPTER XXVII. Testimony Continued. 

WAS IT A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT? 

Defendant Gambren, months after the case closed, comes 
out in a long article on the "Confession of Judgment." He 
complains at the Plaintiff's "ex parte affidavit" and then himself 
makes an "ex parte appeal." His appeal is to the public where he 
knows his statements cannot be judicially Tested. It is an ap- 
peal to a pitying public for public pardon. It covers five long 
columns, 62 inches brevier type. He waited till the people could 
forget. He constructed a dilemma. To answer him was — slime, 
not to answer was — crime. Cunning as a fox, he was cautious 
as a beaver. Having appealed from his own Confession of Judg- 
ment in court to the Baptist public, he discloses his embarrass- 
ment in his attempt to cover it. He puts it in the Missionary 
Worker and then reprints it in a Circular for "wider circulation" 
under the pretense of "Answering Questions." He seeks to throw 
a tinted light on the Court Records. His article furnishes an- 
other Test similar to those "Tests" yet to come. He blundered! 

1. First he denies that Defendant Cranfill paid $5,000. (He 
admits costs, $4,600.) 

2. Second, he denies that Defendant Cranfill Confessed Judg- 
ment! 

3. Third, he denies that all the Defendants Confessed Judg- 
ment! 

4. Fourth, he denies that Defendant Cranfill embezzled mis- 
sion money. 

5. Fifth, he brings up the "Hanks Scandal" and says Hanks 
was "acquitted by the council." (This is cruel.) 

6. Sixth, he says Plaintiff Hayden "ran away from a Church 
trial." 

He sent out these Circulars by the thousand, the ten thousand 
and possibly the hundred thousand. He sent them by rolls and 
bundles and bales throughout this State, and probably throughout 
all the States. "The time has come," he says, "to meet a New 
Situation." That is his latest Confession. 



296 THE COMPLETE 

In the interest of public morals this review of his latest ap- 
peal for a rehearing is written. Taking his propositions in or- 
der: 

1. Did Defendant Cranfill pay $5,000? 

On the 3rd day of May, 1905, after he had paid my attorney 
for me the sum of $5,000 and agreed to pay all costs of court in 
all three cases, exceeding Defendant Cranfill said $4,600, he went 
into the Court House by his attorney and Confessed Judgment 
(see later if he did not), for himself and "In Behalf of All the 
Defendants" by name. He tried hard to get off on less than 
$5,000, making his appeal personally to my attorney, Mr. J. E. 
Cockrell. My attorney, having previously consulted me, declined 
even to consider anything less than $5,000. Defendant Cranfill 
then agreed to pay $5,000, and my generous-hearted attorney 
indulged him in his foolish desire to enter upon the Court Rec- 
ords '"$300." This $300 was paid in three N $100 checks and the 
remaining $4,700 separately. This, as the lawyers say, was a 
"sop," referring, as the dictionaries define it, to the sop thrown 
to Cerberus in mythology, meaning anything to pacify. It was 
foolish, for it added deception, taking away the merit of Con- 
fession. Had he said nothing about it, it would have been better 
for all the Defendants. 

But the same day he rushed into print and published that 

he had "settled all the cases for $300," knowing that he had 

actually paid my attorneys for me $5,000. He, too, had missed 

the phychological moment, as the following statement will show: 

CERTIFICATE OF J. E. COCKRELL. 

Dr. Hayden — In reply to your inquiry, I beg to say, in the set- 
tlement of what is known as the Hayden-Cranfill litigations, Dr. 
Cranfill paid me $5,000 (aside from costs) for the three cases. 
There were additional payments at the same time on other litiga- 
tions with which you had no connection. By agreement judgment 
was entered in each case for $100 only, though $5,000 was actual- 
paid to me by J. B. Crvnfill on these Hayden-Cranfill cases, be- 
sides agreeing to pay the court costs. J. E. Cockrell, 

Dallas, Tex., June 1, 1905. Attorney for Plaintiff. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 29 « 

Defendants Gambrell, Cranfill and Truett then sent out "Pri- 
vate Circulars" certifying that only "$300" had been paid Plaint- 
iff, and that his statement that he had received $5,000 was un- 
true. The purpose of the Defendants was to hide their Confes- 
sion of Judgment (all finally confessed judgment as we shall 
see) from the editors of Baptist papers in the old States. They 
had to meet these men at the Southern Baptist Convention every 
year and to keep up the impressions they had already for several 
years made on many honest minds, they undertook to show that 
Plaintiff received "only $300," where he had asked for $100,000 
in two cases and $25,000 in the third. And they argued that 
"his character was only worth $300." Their plea admitted that 
they paid $300 for Conspiracy to libel a citizen and would have 
had to pay more had his character been worth it! This "$300" ad- 
mission was itself a Confession of Judgment. "It was." said 
they, "only $300." This was as if a criminal charged with as- 
sault to kill should plead that his victim was in poor health 
anyhow, it was not much, he would have died soon anyway from 
consumption! 

It was as if the accused sought to reduce the charge of grand 
larceny to petty theft. That is what the lawyers say. A dis- 
tinguished lawyer who resides out of Texas makes this sugges- 
tion: "They confess their guilt, but plead in mitigation that 
their victim's character 'was worth only $300. " This was a 
fatal Confession, for if it should now transpire that the Defend- 
ants really paid $10,500 damages, and over $4,600 costs, $15,000 
in all, their guilt, from their standpoint, is increased 50-fold! 

The question then is, did Dft. Cranfill pay "$5,000" or only 
$300? The Plaintiff has introduced the Test process effectually 
on former occasions and concludes now to try it again. Hence 
the following affidavit: 

AN AFFIDAVIT. 

State of Texas, County of Dallas: Before me, the undersigned 
authority, on this day personally appeared S. A. Hayden, who, 
after being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: "I hereby 



298 THE COMPLETE 

state under oath that my attorneys have reported to me the pay- 
ment to them of $5,500 by G. G. Wright, attorney for Dft. C. C. 
Slaughter, and $5,000 by Dft. Cranfill, in addition to his as- 
suming the costs of the court (over $4,600), the $10,500 being in 
settlement of the Hayden-Cranfill cases, and that my attorneys 
have settled with me on this basis of $10,500 cash paid in by the 
defendants above named. S. A. Hayden. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 10th day of July, 1905. 
R. E. Capers, Notary Public, Dallas Co., Texas. 

If now any one of the Defendants, Gambrell, Cranfill, Truett 
or others believe their own statement, they surely would make 
affidavit to it. That much was due their friends in the old 
States. But not one of them would swear to the truth of his 
own statement! If they made affidavit to their statement the 
courts could determine who had sworn falsely. The effect was 
the irresistible conviction was carried to the minds of the 
Baptist editors that Defendant Cranfill had paid $5,000 and 
costs ($4,600 he says) besides $5,500 paid for Defendant C. C. 
Slaughter, $15,000 in all. 

The Biblical Recorder, always outspoken in its convictions, 
but chivalrous withal, both against us and for us, as it sees the 
light, had this to say: 

"EDITOR HAYDEN WINS." 

"Editor Hayden wins. Several years ago Editor S. A. Hayden 
was excluded from the Texas Convention under charges touch- 
ing his chaarcter. The presentment held him as "utterly un- 
worthy" and "incorrigible." It appeared that he had been very 
critical of the men in charge of the denomination. He accused 
J. B. Cranfill of embezzling mission funds, for example. Cran- 
fill sued for libel and lost the suit! Nevertheless he continued 
to edit the Baptist Standard until the San Jacinto Oil fiasco 
unhorsed him. Cranfill having won all the leaders unto himself, 
Hayden attacked them. He had grounds for complaint, but ht 
would not confine himself to them. There is no doubt that he 
went too far. Finally he was thrown out of the Convention. He 
sued in the State courts. After seven years Cranfill has paid 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 299 

$10,000 to compromise the suit, and the matter is at an end. 

"An interesting light upon the matter is the fact that while 
Cranfill paid $10,000, he had it entered on the record as $100; 
and so published it. Of course this is nothing but simple de- 
ception. 

"Another significant item is the evidence that a number of 
jurors were bribed in the interest of Cranfill, Slaughter et al. 

"We suppose the war in Texas will continue. Hayden has 
organized another Convention, and Cranfill, no longer in favor, 
is editing a little paper. This paper sympathizes with Drs. Car- 
roll, Truett and Gambrell, but we could wish that they might 
have been content to reckon with Dr. Hayden's criticisms In a 
way to avoid the disastrous suit and the general distress that 
has been upon Texas Baptists now for a decade." 

The Plaintiff corrected Defendant Cranfill's $10,000 to $5,000," 
etc., adding $5,500 paid for Dft. C. C. Slaughter and $300 instead 
of $100.) 

Imagine the embarrassment of the Defendants. They were in 
a dilemma; if they swore to their statement the courts would 
investigate it; if they did not, the public could see that Defend- 
ants knew the Plaintiff's statement was true! Indeed, it was a 
logical Confession that Defendant Cranfill had paid the $5,000 
and that they knew it 

Then they resorted, after their old custom, to Private Corre- 
spondence. They wrote that "nobody believed Dr. Hayden in 
Texas," that "the reason those out of Texas believed him was 
because they did not understand 'the Texas situation'," and 
that "the Baptist editors were relying on ex parte affidavits." As 
if a false ex parte affidavit is different in its penalty from a false 
deposition. This they seemed to understand as they would not 
incur the penalty. Finally they wrote to the Biblical Recorder, 
and possibly to other editors, a long, bitter communication, to 
which Editor Bailey, of the Biblical Recorder, replied: 
"FIRE AND BRIMSTONE." 

"Having received another long communication from Bro. 
Gambrell, long and bitter, we surrender rather than print It. 



300 THE COMPLETE 

We are told that we know nothing of The Texas Baptist situa- 
tion. We wish it were true! Our Texas friends have pursued 
the policy of denying nothing in Texas, but denying everything 
outside. They have themselves, therefore, to blame for current 
misconceptions. We thought merely as a matter of news and 
without prejudice to print a statement of the facts. Lo and 
behold the valiant Gambrell and the saintly Truett have corns 
at us with fire and brimstone. It is true that we printed court 
records, but they declare that the court records are mere ex 
parte affidavits. It is true that at least $300 damages -was paid 
(not to mention the unmentionable amount paid by J. B. C. 
on the side), but they declare that they did not lose the case, 
but that the man who got the $300 did. All right; but it works 
the other way in civilized countries. We accept it all, and 
withdraw everything, anything just now to get out of the Texas 
war!" 

The Baptist Chronicle's brave editor, spoke in a similar vein 

It was to meet impressions gained in this Recorder and other 

articles, that this last 62-inch Circular of Defendants was printed. 

With the brave, bright, brainy Biblical Recorder, their "Fire and 

Brimstone" missed the psychological moment. 

With this "Affidavit Test" declined by the Defendants, sup- 
ported as it was by the certificate of an eminent lawyer whose 
statement they knew to be true, I submit the question as to 
whether Defendant Cranfill paid the $5,000. I affirm. Defend- 
ants deny. Mr. Cockrell certifies that he did. The Defendants 
shy. I make affidavit that he did. The Defendants fly. In 
court, this is Confession. Proof could not be more conclusive. 
2. Was Defendant Cranfill's settlement a Confession of Judg- 
ment? Plaintiff affirms. Defendants deny. To the law and to 
the testimony: 

From Anderson's Dictionary of Law; attend to definitions: 

"Confession of Action: A plea confessing the complaint In 

whole or in part. An admission of a cause of action as alleged 

in the declaration to the extent of its terms." The extent of its 

terms they admit was $300.00. They must confess that this was 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 301 

a "confession of action," for it was done in open court by their 
own act. 

"Confession of Judgment: A voluntary submission to the ju- 
risdiction of the court, giving by consent and without service of 
process, what could (might) otherwise be obtained by complaint, 
summons and other formal proceedings." They must admit that 
Plaintiff might have got judgment. And they must admit that 
their "submission to the jurisdiction of the court" was "volun- 
tary." That made it a Confession of Judgment. Judgment was 
entered by the court on the confession of Defendant Cranfill "for 
himself and in behalf of all the other Defendants." How else 
could he have Confessed Judgment? But what is a "voluntary 
confession?" Let the same eminent authority answer: 

"Voluntary Confession: The presumption is that all confes- 
sions are voluntary; free from promise or threat. The state of 
mind must be brought about by the accused's own independent 
reasoning." But the twenty-eight other Defendants acquiesced in 
Defendant Cranfill's Confession of Judgment. Was it from their 
own "independent reasoning?" The Defendants had able law- 
yers. They must have reached their conclusion by their own 
"independent reasoning" that it would be better for them to 
confess judgment, which they did. 

The same able author says, further: 

"The practice is to inquire of the witness whether the prisoner 
had been told, in effect, that it would be better for him to con- 
fess, or worse for him if he did not confess." Unless they were 
scared into it, they are estopped from denial. 

"A man is said to be estopped when he has done some act 
which the policy of the law will not permit him to gainsay or 
deny." Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants can go into 
court any more on these cases. Both sides have been "estopped." 
It is too late for the Defendants, after Plaintiff has accepted 
their Confession of Judgment, to enter a denial in the court or 
before the public. The denial they enter before the public 
should have been made before the court. According to Green- 
leaf, they are "estopped." 



302 THE COMPLETE 

"Its foundation is laid in the obligation which every man is 
under to speak and act according to the truth of the case." Then 
the Circulars are tantamount to the Defendants saying that when 
the Judgment was entered in court, it was not "according to 
the truth of the case." That involves the legal question of es- 
toppel. Greenleaf further says: 

"The doctrine of estoppel has, however, been guarded with 
great strictness; not because the party enforcing it necessarily 
wishes to exclude the truth . . . but because the estoppel may 
exclude the truth." That means that if the Defendants' Circular 
denying Confession of Judgment be true, they were scared into 
the Confession by threats, or lured into it by promises. The law 
is very watchful on this point, lest men be scared or coaxed 
into confessions which they did not reach "by their own inde- 
pendent reasoning." According, then, to Anderson's definition 
of Confession of Judgment, universally accepted by all lawyers 
and according to Greenleaf 's analysis of Confessions, -all the De- 
fendants did Confess Judgment. 

Thus far we have considered only civil cases. We turn to 
criminal cases. Did they Confess? 

The reader must remember that Conspiracies are quasi-crim- 
inal; i. e., both civil and criminal offenses, and that every ver- 
dict of the juries gave both civil and criminal, actual and puni- 
tive damages. Hence Greenleaf's observations above, being on 
civil cases, it is proper to quote him on the criminal aspect of 
these Conspiracy cases. 

In Volume 1, Section 213, Greenleaf says: "The rules of evi- 
dence, in regard to the voluntary admissions of the party, are 
the same in criminal as in civil cases." Greenleaf divides con- 
fessions of guilt into "direct and indirect confessions," or those 
which in civil cases are usually termed "implied admissions." 

In Section 215, Greenleaf says: "Deliberate confessions of 
guilt are the most effectual proofs in the law. Their value de- 
pends on the supposition that they are deliberate and volun- 
tary, and on the presumption that a rational being will not make 
admissions prejudicial to his interest and safety, unless when 






CONSPIRACY TRIAL 303 

urged by the promptings of truth and conscience. Such confes- 
sions, so made by a prisoner ... are at common law received 
in evidence, as among proofs of guilt." 

In Section 216 Greenleaf divides confessions into "Judicial 
and Extrajudicial:" "Judicial confessions are those made in 
court, in the due course of legal proceedings, and it is essential 
that they be made of the free will of the party." Extrajudicial 
confessions are those made out of court. 

The question now is, Did the Defendants exercise their 
"free will" in their Confession of Judgment? If not, there is for 
them only one way of escape. They must show that they did 
not enter into the agreement "voluntarily." 

Greenleaf says: "Such a confession is sufficient to be found 
a conviction, even if it be followed by a sentence of death, it 
being definitely made, under the deepest solemnity, with the ad- 
vice of counsel, and the protecting oversight of the Judge." 

The judge must protect scared people under such circum- 
stances. Defendant Cranfill was represented in the court house 
by his attorney, R. B. Allen, and under the protecting oversight 
of Judge Richard Morgan. There is no escape here. 

Greenleaf in the same section declares this "A rule of uni- 
versal jurisprudence," and quotes approvingly this overwhelm- 
ing principle: "A free and voluntary confession Is deserving of 
the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the 
strongest sense of guilt, and therefore it is admitted as proof of 
the crime to which it refers; but a .confession forced from the 
mind by the flattery of hope, or by the torture of fear, comes In 
questionable shape and is rejected. The material inquiry, there- 
fore, is whether the confession has been obtained by the Influ- 
ence of hope or fear applied by a third person to the prisoner's 
mind." 

What "third" party influenced the Defendants, either by hope 
or fear? There were only two men, by their own printed state- 
ments, that they could possibly claim influenced them; viz., Mr. 
Ben T. Seay and Elder R. C. Buckner. But Greenleaf says that 
the Judge is under obligations to guard this point. 



304 THE COMPLETE 

The only escape, therefore, for the Defendants, is that they 
were prompted to their confessions by some "influence of hope 
or fear." The theory that would exonerate them leaves the 
judge in the attitude of allowing twenty-eight Defendants, under 
quasi-criminal prosecution in his court, to be mulcted into con- 
fessions of their guilt through motives of "hope or fear" brought 
to bear upon them by a "third party." And the essence of their 
pleading is that Elder R. C. Buckner and Mr. Ben T. Seay led 
them into this unfortunate predicament! 

That the Defendants are not trying to enlighten the public 
on the facts is apparent from their quotation of Mr. Ben T. 
Seay, whose statement they publish. Mr. Seay does not deny 
that Cranfill paid $5,000. Mr. Seay is a truthful man and knows 
that Defendant Cranfill agreed to pay $5,000 as Mr. Cockrell cer- 
tifies he did. Mr. Seay negotiated the transaction to some ex- 
tent, and talked the matter over with my attorney, Mr. Cockrell. 

The Defendants are using an honorable name to sustain their 
word, when Mr. Seay only certifies to the "$300 as recorded in 
the court," which is not in dispute. In this the Defendants 
Confess that they did not believe their own denial! 

But fiaay not a defendant, under some circumstances, pay 
off an unjust claim to get rid of a lawsuit? Why, yes. It some- 
times becomes necessary, perhaps, in a civil suit, to pay a per- 
son for a quit-deed on property to which he has no equitable 
claim. But these Conspiracy cases are "qausi-criminal," and the 
payment of a cent by the Defendants is a Confession of their 
guilt. This their own attornews admitted in the court house. 
Here is what L. J. Truett, attorney for his brother G. W. Truett, 
said in his speech before the jury: 

"If you give Dr. Hayden one cent of damages, you will by 
your own verdict say that every Defendant who has been on the 
witness stand has deliberately sworn falsely." 

11. This was the quasi-criminal suit. In the criminal suit 
brought by Defendant Cranfill against the Plaintiff because 
Plaintiff had charged Defendant Cranfill with embezzlement, 
Cranfill's co-defendant and attorney, Dudley G. Wooten, declared: 



CONSPIRA Y T R I A L 305 

"You acquit that man Hayden, and what have you done? You 
have published to the world, over your sworn verdict, that J. B. 
Cranfill embezzled mission money belonging to the Baptist Con- 
vention. You cannot give it any other construction. The law 
gives it that. He has pleaded the truth of his libel. The law says 
that he must prove it, that the burden is on him to prove it; 
that he must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence; that 
you must be satisfied as reasonable men that Cranfill is guilty. 
Otherwise you convict S. A. Hayden." 

This statement of Defendant Cranfill's own attorney was 
taken down by Defendant Cranfill's own stenographer, Mr. J. A. 
Lord. The jury believed him, and so brought in their verdict. 

If Defendants Gambrell, Cranfill, Truett et al. will not yield 
to Mr. Cockrell's certificate, the Plaintiff's Test Affidavit, the 
Statements of their own attorneys, and universal Public Opinion 
in Texas, and carefully shun the law on false swearing, it seems 
settled that they themselves do not believe their own state- 
ments. 

The question has often been asked: If Defendant Cranfill 
did embezzle mission money, why was he not indicted for the 
crime? Because he reported his books "lost" until the Statute 
of Limitations had run!! From 1892 until 1896 his books were 
reported "lost." They were not brought into court and the em- 
bezzlement shown until a period of six years. The Statute of 
Limitations is only two years! 

3. Did All the Defendants Confess Judgment? 

When, on the 3rd day of May, 1905, Defendant Cranfill went 
into court, through his attorneys, and entered Confession of 
Judgment "for himself and in behalf of his co-defendants," nam- 
ing them, they complained bitterly that it was without their con- 
sent, and that thej would not stand it. They talked it all over 
Dallas. They talked it all over Texas. They talked It at the 
Southern Baptist Convention at Kansas City. They denounced 
Cranfill as having Confessed Judgment "in their behalf" which 
he had no right to do! They protested loud and long, and dis- 
claimed any knowledge of it till it was publicly announced. Then 



306 THE COMPLETE 

Plaintiff, through his attorney, went into the court house and 
entered upon the records the following motion: 

8. A. Hayden » 

v. 17121 
J. B. Cranfill. 

In the Forty-Fourth District Court — Now comes the Defend- 
ant by attorney, and suggests that he understands that some of 
the Defendants deny that Defendant Cranfill had authority tt 
agree to the Judgment heretofore entered in this court, and as 
to all such Defendants he now agrees that upon a proper mo* 
tion by them the Judgment heretofore entered may be by con- 
sent set aside, and he now moves the court that when same shall 
have been so set aside, the Judgment be reformed so as to In- 
clude only those who shall not have repudiated this settlement, 
and as to those repudiating it, the cause be duly set down for 
trial. CRAWFORD, COCKRELL & GRAY, 

Attorneys for Plaintiff. 

Filed May 8, 1895: A, B. Rawlins, Clork District Court. 

M. F. M inter, Deputy 

Here it is on record at the Court House that it is a "judg- 
ment." Defendants have admitted it. The Court records it. 

This left the other Defendants to choose between two things: 
Either to acquiesce in Defendant Cranfill's Confession of Judg- 
ment, or accept the exemption which they claimed, and which 
Plaintiff by his motion conceded. Would they acquiesce, or 
would they stand their trial? They acquiesced!! That made 
them as much Confessors of Judgment as Defendant Cranfill 
himself. Their "protest" was a sham, as usual. Although they 
made him pay all the costs, they took refuge under his Con- 
fession of Judgment. 

But the Circular states that "Neither side withdrew its plead- 
ings." That is true. But to pay a fine of $5,000 with $5,500 pre- 
viously paid, and pay costs, $4,600, in a quasi criminal case, 
is ipso facto to Confess Judgment. Withdraw pleadings! Pshaw! 
Neither side could "withdraw the pleadings." If the $10,500 and 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 307 

costs had been paid under a verdict of a jury, "the pleadings of 
neither side would have been withdrawn." My attorneys did not 
care if the Defendants put in that gauzy sham that "the plead- 
ings of neither side were withdrawn." It was a record for the 
Plaintiff asked foolishly by Defendants. If the Defendants wanted 
to make their confession emphatic my attorneys had no objection. 

The payment of the fine and costs was ipso facto a "with- 
drawal." But the Plaintiffs' pleadings stood, and the payment 
of $10,500 and the costs confirm these pleadings. It was all the 
worse for the Defendants that "the pleadings stood." It vindi- 
cated the Plaintiff. It confessed the guilt of the Defendants. At 
least, quoting the words of the Biblical Recorder, "that is the 
way it works in civilized countries." This is the way it works 
both in North Carolina and in Texas. 

But the most remarkable statement of the Defendants re- 
mains to be noticed : They say that Plaintiff Hayden "Accepted 
$300 and let their allegations stand" And they are pleased with 
this little flash of lightening, not considering the bolt! For, if 
Plaintiff Hayden "accepted $300 to let their pleadings stand," the 
Defendants paid that amount in order that they might stand! 
Thus, by their own confession, they bought the right to "let 
their allegations stand!" This too, after they Lad in four cases 
tried to prove them, and failed! So they unwittingly confess 
that the $300 was paid "to let their pleadings stand." They do 
not seem to have perceived, when they wrote that fatal sentence, 
that it was a two-edged sword. This is the old case of not know- 
ing the gun was loaded. 

4. Did Defendant Cranfill Embezzle Mission Money? 

Let us see: 

1. He "lost" his missionary reports, and they have never been 
found. These missionary reports were the only tests of money 
collected in existence. 

2. He "lost" his account books in 1892, and did not find them 
until 1896. Then they proved to be only a "transcript." The 
transcript was in several handwritings, and he could not identify 
the writers. 



308 THE COMPLETE 

3. He received, after he went out of the mission work, $2,500 
from Defendant J. M. Carroll "to pay missionaries." He could 
show no receipt, no voucher, produce no witness as to where a 
cent of that money had gone! If he had named a person, there 
could have been a test at least as to that person. "$2,00 to 
pay missionaries" is a considerable sum of money not to be ac- 
counted for. 

4. He retained $375 (admitted on oath) after he had gone 
out of office, for collecting pledges and preaching on missions 
on Sundays — not a solitary week day's work. 

5. His collections for his last year's service were $10,000 
less than the year before or the year following. 

6. His reported collections for his last year's service did not 
exceed the "Co-operative Work" of the year previous and the 
year following. That left the Convention without a cent of 
cash on that year's collections. Is all this merely an asser- 
tion, ex parte without proof? 

7. He sued Plaintiff for criminal libel for having published 
that he had embezzled mission money. Plaintiff pleaded the 
Truth of his statement; the judge charged the jury to bring a 
verdict on the Truth or Falsity of the charge; and in five min- 
utes the jury reached the unanimous agreement of acquittal for 
Plaintiff. 

8. Plaintiff then brought suit against Cranfill for $25,000 for 
"Maiiciousi Prosecution." By his own confession he paid $100 
to Plaintiff and costs on that suit. 

9. Defendant Cranfill's own attorney declared during and 
after the trial that the verdict of the jury convicted Defendant 
Cranfill of embezzlement. 

It is asked why Defendant Cranfill was not prosecuted for 
embezzlement. Because, as already stated, he waited until the 
statute of limitation had run four years before these facts were 
uncovered. Is this proof? $10,000 short in his accounts, $2,500 
unaccounted for, the verdict of the jury that the charge of em- 
bezzlement against him was True, and the declaration of his 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 309 

own attorney that 'you cannot give it any other construction." 

But, to be a little more definite: Cranfill had been paying his 
dental bills and his mission contributions out of the mission 
fund. Dr. H. W. Smith, dentist, and deacon of the First Church, 
Waco, where Defendant Cranfill also held his membership, testi- 
fied that he had paid Cranfill cash for missions which was not 
credited on his books. Cranfill swore it was a "lie." Dr. Smith 
swore he had done dental work for Defendant Cranfill. Cranfill 
swore that that was a "lie. Dr. Smith also swore that he had done 
work for Cranfiill's wife the bill for which Cranfill did not pay, 
but said he would credit on Dr. Smith's mission subscription, 
which Cranfill's books showed had not been done. Defendant 
Cranfill swore that Dr. Smith's statements were "lies;" that "Dr. 
Smith had never done any work for him in his life," and that he 
had paid for his wife's work partly in an advertisement, and the 
balance in checks, the last check being for "$4.50." This last 
$4.50 became pivotal. 

Dr. Smith, on the witness stand, showed his dental books, 
with diagrams showing exactly what tooth he had worked on 
in Cranfill's mouth, and what part of the tooth, and said "if the 
tooth did not correspond with his diagram, he would confess that 
he had Med, and pay Defendant Cranfill $100!" He asked Cranfill 
to submit to the Test. Cranfill refused to show his teeth! 

The court gave a recess, and Defendant Cranfill, who weighs 
240 pounds, assaulted Dr. Smith, who weighs 150 pounds. He 
repelled Cranfill's assault with a cane, felling him to the 
floor. Both were indicted. Cranfill Confessed Judgment and 
paid his fine. A jury, in one minute after reaching their room, 
declared Dr. Smith "Not Guilty." After this tragedy, Defend- 
ant Cranfill, although the, case was closed, asked Plaintiff's 
attorneys to grant him the' opportunity to show the 
truth of his sworn statement by the "checks." Thel 
generous attorneys, in sheer pity for him, consented, and he 
ruined his case still more by presenting a check dated the year 
before the dental work was done, "March, 1892!" The check 
was dated "Octo. 19, 1891." 



310 THE COMPLETE 

The Cranfill-Smith "Check.' 



SEE CHECK ON LAST PAGE. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 311 

This "$12 dental bill" Dr. Smith had donated to missions, De- 
fendant Cranfill promising to credit Dr. Smith's subscription to 
missions with $12. No account of this $12 was found on Defend- 
ant Cranfill's "transcript" of his bo-ok. 

The lower left hand corner was torn off when Defendant Cran- 
fill offered it. It was not torn off so far, but that the slight pen 
marks may be seen in the "check." Dr. Smith says on the torn off 
part was written: "Dr. Cranfill's subscription to J. G. Kendall, City 
Missionary," or its substance, and he exhibited the "City Mis- 
sion" subscription book with the entry, "Oct. 19, 1891, J. B. Cran- 
fill paid City Missions $4.50," which proves his statement true. 
It will be noticed that this check was signed, "J. B. Cranfill, 
Supt.," showing that he paid his subscription to Waco City Mis- 
sions out of the mission fund. 

Notice. 

1. This check was dated "Oct. 19, 1891," the year previous 
to the work done for Defendant Cranfill's wife, which was 
"March, 1902," The swift earth in her circuit around the sun, and 
the calendars testified! 

2. Even if the $4.50 check had been for dental work, it 
showed on its face that Defendant Cranfill had been paying his 
dental bills out of the mission money! For Defendant Cranfill 
testified that he had only one bank account, the Mission Fund, 
and the check shows that he signed it "Supt." 

3. He had not charged himself with the "$4.50,' even if he 
had paid it for the dental work, as he swore he had. No such 
charge was on his books. He had settled a dental bill for his 
wife in part by Dr. Smith's professional "card" in the State 
Mission Journal, the property of the Board. His 
sworn statement is a confession, for he nowhere charges him- 
self with the "$7.50," showing that he had paid his bills, this one 
by his own statement, in advertising space in the Journal, the 
property of the Board! 

5. This same Mission Journal shows the accounts of "San- 
ger Bros.'-' and others paid in goods, and other items aggregating 
approximately $500, which he did not account for to the Board 
or the Convention. . 

6. Besides this, there were other assets of the State Mis- 
sion Journal, making nearly another $1,000, which he never 
turned in to the Board. All this is shown by his own books. 

7. The "$4.50" check of date "Oct. 19, 1891," has the fol- 
lowing history: 

Dr Smith was collector for city missions in the First Bap- 



312 THE COMPLETE 

tist Church, Waco, in "1891." His book for that special fund 
shows that Defendant Cranfill subscribed for himself and wife 
each 50c a month, or $12 a year. Now with this "$4.50" check 
Cranfill paid his subscription to Waco city missions. Dr. Smith's 
"city mission book" shows this entry: "Oct. 19, 1891, J. B. Cran- 
fill paid $4.50." This check was inscribed on the corner "City 
Missions," which Cranfill had torn off, leaving the pen marks 
visible, as may be seen on the face of the check. In Cranfill's 
mission account no entry is made of this "$4.50" paid from the 
State mission fund, which, with other entries, shows that he was 
in the habit of paying his personal bills out of the State mis- 
sion fund. His accounts further show that he frequently charged 
the mission funds "$1.00" a meal on sleeping cars day and night. 
In one instance the charge of "$2.00" is made against the mis- 
sion fund from "Temple to Waco," distance of 32 miles. Even 
the "porter" is paid "10c" out of the mission fund! 

Many other cases were in evidence. His attorneys admit 
that the verdicts of the juries convict Defendant Cranfill of em- 
bezzlement. Read what they say under No. 2 of this chapter. 

6 Was Hanks Acquitted by the Council? 

It is cruel in Defendant Gambrell to thrust this question again 
before the public. He would have been less cruel if he had 
thrown Defendant nanks in a well. Seeing this Circular of De- 
fendant Gambrell, Elder A. D. Brooks of Milford, Texas, one of 
the council, voluntarily sends this statement: 

Statement of One of the Council. 

"Dr. Gambrell is very far from the truth when he says, as he 
does in his recent circular, 'The council in the Hanks case eigh- 
teen years ago exonerated Hanks.' I happened to be one of that 
council, and every member of it knows full well that it was 
anything but an exoneration. He can ask Dr. B. H. Carroll, who 
was chosen by Hanks as one of the council, and Hanks' right- 
hand man when he came; but he was thoroughly convinced of 
Hanks' guilt before he left." A. D. BROOKS, 

Milford, Texas, March 29, 1906. Member of the Council. 

Notice the dates. 

"The council used just as MILD words in the framing of their 
findings as was possible, so as not to put us in the attitude before 
the world of approving such acts of the Rev. R. T. Hanks as were 
clearly proven." 

"To have exonerated him under such circumstances, we never 
again could claim respect from well-governed society." . 

"The action of the council in making its final decision in the 
unfortunate case which came before us, was never considered by 
me, nor in my judgment by the others of the council, as a vindi- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 313 

cation of the Rev. R. T. Hanks from the charge and the specifica- 
tions brought before us; but, to the contrary, the one general 
charge, and some of the various specifications, were sustained." 

"When it was read to him in the committee room at about 
5 o'clock in the morning, after a whole night spent in an effort 
to harmonize on certain phraseology, he said with deep emotion: 
'Brethren, it is murder; you crucify me; I've been on the cross 
three days, and now that is death!'" 

April, 1889. A. D. BROOKS. 

Member of the Council. 
Statement of Rev. J. R. Clark. 

Hillsboro, Texas, May 4. 1889. 

"I do not regard the decision of the council as a vindication 
of Eld. R. T. Hanks. Specification second under the general 
charge was regarded by the council as fully substantiated. Bro. 
Hanks himself did not regard the decision as a vindication of 
him, but was very much hurt when it was read to him, exclaim- 
ing, 'You have crucified me!' 1 J. R. CLARK, 

Member of the Council. 
Statement of Dr. Win. Hovrard. 

"That Final Decision was unanimously signed; it was a pain- 
ful, tearful act, done reluctantly, I believe, on the part of all." 

"That decision clearly states that the proof substantiates evehy 
material allegation in the second specification, the gravest of all, 
and yet Bro. Hanks vindicated! God in his infinite mercy, save 
all his servants from such a vindication!" 

"When read to him on that Friday morning, the council was 
astounded and overwhelmed at his statements; notwithstanding 
the most solemn promises to abide by the decision, he said, in 
substance: 'The council has exceeded its poewrs, therefore the 
church win no t receive your decision, and I shall so advise it. 
Your decision ruins me; I shall have to seek employment out- 
side the ministry;' that 'it would rend the denomination in Texas 
asunder,' etc. 

"Neither the council as individuals or as rendered in their de- 
cision ever intended that they should be understood as vindicating 
and thereby exonerating and acquitting Rev. R. T. Hanks." 

WM. HOWARD, 
President of the Council. 

Following the investigation by the council, Elders Brooks, 

Carroll, Clark, Griffin and several other members of the council, 
wrote statements to the same effect. Their statements are on 
file. Defendant B. H. Carroll said that the ambiguity of the 
council's findings was in itself a "whitewash," and that he "would 
never whitewash another man." On the witness stand in the 
conspiracy trial, Defendant B. H. Carroll swore that Hanks was 
not acquitted by him in the Hanks scandal. 

Defendant Gambrell is cruel for reviving this disagreeable 
case. 

Dr. J. M. Pendleton, then -in Austin, said the findings of the 
council was a conviction. One of the families which Hanks had 
dishonored sued me far slander. I had in legal form full proof 
of their shame. I have it yet. Hanks induced the husband 
to bring suit. Following this suit against me, I brought suit 
against this unmanly husband. He was convicted, and paid his 



314 THE COMPLETE 

fine. When my case came up for trial, Hanks and the dishon- 
ored husband took the prosecuting attorney aside, and asked 
permission to drop the case. My attorneys protested. But they 
insisted. Then my attorneys read the following paper to the 
Court: 

Protest Against Dismissal. 

State of Texas 

vs. 
S. A. Hayden. 

In the County Court, Dallas County, A. D. 1889 — And. now 
comes the defendant in the above styled and number case, by his 
attorney, and files this demurrer to and protest against a dis- 
missal of this cause, and especially the reasons assigned by the 
prosecuting attorney for dismissing same. 

The defendant says that he is ready, anxious and willing to 
establish through this judicial tribunal his innocence of the charge 
of slander in the case preferred against him, and to establish 
the truth and consistency of anything and everything that he may 
have said or done in connection with what is known as the "Hanks 
Scandal." 

And while the defendant, notwithstanding his keen desire to 
have the case thoroughly sifted in this court, to the end that in- 
jured innocence might be vindicated, and the guilty creatures who 
have been privately prosecuting herein, and attempting to hound 
down and persecute this defendant to hide their guilty selves and 
subserve their carnal and venal ends; still this defendant concedes 
the State's right to dismiss any prosecution, however great a 
hardship it might result to a defendant. But in dismissing a 
criminal prosecution, the defendant humbly submits the State is 
confined to legitimate public reasons for so doing, and that it is 
an outrage upon the helpless conditions of a defendant to permit 
private persons to inject into the prosecuting officers reasons for 
dismissing a case, cowardly, false and malicious statements in n© 
wise pertinent to a dismissal of this case. 

Defendant prays the protection of the court against the unwar- 
ranted and illegal reasons set forth in the motion made by the 
State to dismiss this case, and asks that said motion be overruled, 
because insufficient, and because it is an insult to and abuse of 
the dignity and majesty of this tribunal and the laws at large. 

THOMPSON & CLINT, 
Attorneys for Defendant. 

The dishonored man left Dallas for parts to me unknown, and 
I have never heard of him since. It grieves me sorely that the 
cruelty of any man should revive these shameful disclosures. 
Defendant Gambrell knows well the truth of all these statements. 
Again he misses the psychological moment. 

Defendant Gambrell has been the attorney for the defense of 
the most immoral men Texas has even known, such as Hanks, 
Slaughter, Lamkin et al., and the attorney- for the prosecution 
of the finest men, such as Burleson, Anderson, Overall et al., 
that Texas has ever known. He has spent money freely in the 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 315 

defense of the licentious, exalting them to positions in order to 
defend them, at the expense of the mission money. He defended 
L. D. Lamkin, and put him upon the people, to the humiliation 
of our Baptist cause all over the country, until the ministers 
of Missouri met and forced from Lamkin a promise never to 
preach again. Having defended Lamkin, he was called on in a 
public asser. bly to pray for me as one "utterly unworthy." De- 
fendant Gambrell's attorneyship is ever for the bad, and never 
for the good. In this he is kind to the good. His attorneyship 
would be cruel. 

But the Defendants confessed judgment to themselves be- 
fore they confessed it in the Court House. They visited every 
scene of Plaintiff's childhood for some slip of youth or misde- 
meaner of maturer manhood. As tourists traverse the Land o' 
Burns, so these Defendants, especially the Gambrell's, traversed 
the land of Hayden, and they returned and reported to their 
attorneys that they found nothing. This confession, no doubt, 
made the Court House confession more facile. 

The boys with whom I spent my boyhood knew my faults, 
but forgave them, and would not help fix upon me charges 
that were not true. The Gambrell's traversed those haunts 
of my boyhood for misdemeanor and crime, and heard only praise. 
The creeks, the rivers, the pines and oaks, and the lake breezes 
sang to these inquisitors as they reported, as Kipling sang to 
his cockney critics. 



Wen 'Omer smote his bloamin lyre 

E'd 'eard men sing- by land and sea, 
And what 'e thought 'e might require 

'E went and took the same as me. 
The market girls and fishermen, 

The shepherds and the sailors, too, 
They 'eard old songs rise up again, 

But kep it quiet same as you. 
They knew 'e stole; 'e knew they knowed, 

But did not tell or make a fuss, 
But winked at 'Omer down the road, 

And 'e winked back the same as us. 



316 THE COMPLETE 

This confession of guilt was made from the very beginning. 
The interviews of Defendant Truett with Mr. A. W. Morris; the 
attempt of Defendant Cranfill to bribe the detective, Mr. Kirby, 
to suborn witnesses among the outcasts of the Reservation; the 
employment of Detective Ed Cornwell who bribed the juryman 
Will Morris, whose father, to protect himself, turned State's 
evidence, in which bribery G. G. Wright, son-in-law and attorney 
of C. C. Slaughter, was the principal — all go to make a case of un- 
paraleled enormity. Following Defendant Cranfill's attempt to 
kill Plaintiff, his attempt to hire Clark, the bartender, to assault 
Plaintiff, his attempt to bribe Detective Kirby to suborn wit- 
nesses from among the unfortunate — Defendant Cranfill, in the 
face of these well-known and provable facts, soon afterwards was 
appointed by President R. C. Buckner at the Convention at Waco, 
November 7, 1906, "Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Mis- 
sions," with Defendant Slaughter, well known to R. C. Buckner, 
Defendant Truett and the people generally, to be frequently in- 
toxicated, "President of the Board;" and R. T. Hanks, Vice-Presi- 
dent of the Convention — all these things considered, is not this 
a clear case of Confession of Judgment, and is not the publica- 
tion of this book a moral necessity? 

3 7. Did Hayden Run Away? 

Defendant Gambrell says that Plaintiff Hayden "ran away 
from a church trial in the First Baptist church at Dallas.' This 
has been circulated among thousands and believed, no doubt, 
by many honest people. But it is a Board Party statement. 
Informed people know what that means. 

Dr. A. J. Holt, now a strong ally of Defendants, perhaps will 
be good testimony. We give it for the benefit of both of them : 

Dr. Holt'* Statement. 

., „ '•' ^ „ Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 1890. 

Rev. S. A. Hayden, Dallas, Texas: 

Dear Sir — Replying to your favor of yesterday, I will state 
to the best of my recollection, the matter of our joining the East 
Dallas Church without letters. The First Church, in following 
the leading of Mr. Hanks, in preferring charges against us as- 
certained that she had undertaken a more serious matter than 
she intended. Many of the members were feverishly anxious to 
put a stop to the trial, which was rapidly assuming the atti- 



CONSPIRACY TEUL 317 

tude of a trial of the First Church, rather than a trial of us. 
Col. Williams was foremost in trying- to avert the pending- trial. 
They were anxious to get rid of us without a trial or exclusion. 
At least the suggestion was made first by Col. Williams through 
W. H. Prather, that if we would go to the East Dallas Church 
that would settle the business and the charges would be with- 
drawn, the pastor would be asked to resign and the matter would 
drop, and the Church would again be united. The spirit of some 
of the members was that we should be excluded. Others and 
a greater number, were confident of cur acquittal. Meanwhile, 
the entire denomination was being disturbed by the trouble. The 
cause which I represented was especially embarrassed. Finally, 
at my request, a council of ten brethren, eight of whom were 
Baptist ministers, and three of whom were members of the First 
Church, was called in our office, and after a laborious and lengthy 
conference, unanimously advised us to go to the East Dallas 
Church without letters. This I decided to do. You were of the 
decided opinion that it was best to remain in the First Church 
and abide the issue. With the unanimous advice of the council, 
the invitation of the East Dallas Church, the advice of the most 
prominent members of the First Church, the hope of immediately 
relieving the embarrassment of my missionary work, I remained 
firm in my opinion that we should go to the East Church, which 
you at least concluded to yield to. 

We both saw our mistake when the members of the First 
Church who advised the move, were the first to condemn it. They 
promised certain things but kept not their promises, so at my 
own suggestion we set at once to repair the mistake by return- 
ing to the First Church while yet our trial was pending, which 
we did to the consternation of her members who opposed us, and 
we were honorably discharged by the charges being withdrawn. 
Yours fraternally, A. J. HOLT. 

It will be seen that this was written Aug. 13, 1890. About 

a month later some score of preachers sent out a statement which 

is published below. Among these the reader will observe a 

goodly host of supplemented, now loyal to the Board Party. 

Read it. 



Statement of Twenty Baptist Preacher*. 

Dallas, Texas, September 9, 1890. 
Itev. S. A. Hayden, Dallas, Texas: 

We, the undersigned ministers of the gospel in Dallas and 
vicinity, having observed your firm and unswerving devotion to 
the unity, prosperity and peace of the Baptists of Texas, under 
trials and tests of which your brethren at a distance from Dallas 
know but little or nothing, desire to say to vou and to our breth- 
ren throughout the State that you have our admiration and 
nearty approval for your great fortitude in maintaining a dig- 
nified and uniform silence in our denominational paper when you 
could at any time have used it as a weapon for defense and 
offense, and we here and now assure you that you shall have 
our continual and hearty support- Were your brethren at a 
distance in a position to know the Christian forbearance and 
firmness which you have maintained under the peculiar circum- 
stances in which the providence of God has placed you, you 
would have, as you deserve, the hearty support of all who esteem 
the integrity and sanctity of the ministry and of Christianity 
above all things. Your characteristic of uncompromising devo- 
tion to a purpose and your unwavering confidence in the om- 
nipotence of justice, truth and right qualify you in our judgment 
above all men known to us for the position yom occupy as 
editor of our denominational paper. And we feel it a privilege 
to bear this testimony to your Christian manhood and minis- 
terial fidelity to the highest interests of the denomination, dur- 



318 THE COMPLETE 

ing the unpleasant and trying experiences through which you 
have passed in the last four years, in which you have acted with 
the most rigid conformity to all the rules of personal integrity 
and virtue. We have appointed three of our number, to-wit: Eld. 
B. H. Crumpton, of the Washington Avenue Church; A. B. Ingram, 
of the Second Baptist Church, and L. R. Scruggs, of the First 
Baptist Church, of Dallas, to whom we request all persons In- 
terested to apply for information, with whom we have deposited 
the proof which we believe would be accepted in any court of 
justice. We bid you godspeed and commend you as worthy th« 
support of every good man in the State for the protection you 
have given the Baptist ministry of Texas and of the world dur- 
ing the entire course of your editorial career. (Signed) 

JAMES EVANS, 
Pastor Baptist Church, Lancaster, Texas. 
W. S. WILSON, 
Pastor Friendship Baptist Church, Seagoville, Texas. 
H. T. LIVELY, 
Pastor Prairie Baptist Church, Dallas County, Texas. 
G. O. KEY, 
Pastor Baptist Church, Garland, Dallas County, Tex. 
L. R. SCRUGGS, 
Member of First Baptist Church, Dallas. 

B. H. CRUMPTON, 
Pastor Washington Avenue Baptist Church, Dallas. 

A. B. INGRAM, 
Pastor Second Baptist Church, Dallas* Texas. 
T. L. SCRUGGS, 
Missionary, West Dallas, Texas. 
W. A. JARREL, 

Evangelist, Dallas, Texas. 
G. T. CARTER, 
Mesquite, Dallas County, Texas. 
J. F. PINSON, 

Forney, . Texas. 
J. T. PINSON, 
Pastor of Baptist Church, Forney, Texas. 

C. J. LACY, 

Pastor Rose Hill Baptist Church, Dallas Co., Tex. 
R. F. BUTLER, 
Pastor of three Baptist Churches in Collin County. 
G. W. GOOD, 
Farmers Branch, Tex. (Moderator Dallas Co. Ass'n.) 
S. D. SCOTT, 
Elam Station, Dallas County, Tex. 
ELI RATCLIFF, 

Dallas County, Texas. 
JOHN HOLLAND, 
Evangelist, Dallas, Texas. 
J. M. TALLEY, 
Pastor Mesquite Baptist Church, Dallas Co., Tex. 



'For Life is not as idle ore, 

But iron dug from central gloom, 

And heated hot with burning fears, 

And dipt in baths of hissing tears, 

And battered with the shocks of doom 

To shape and use." 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 319 

CHAPTER XXVIII. 
Dr. R. C. Burleson Vindicated. Testimony Continued. 

Witness Rev. A. M. Johnson for Plaintiff testified that De- 
fendant B. H. Carroll, returning in 1892 from a visit to New 
York to secure from John D. Rockefeller a gift for Baylor Uni- 
versity, sent for him, and in substance said that "He could have 
secured a much larger sum than $15,000, the amount obtained, 
had he consented to the desire of Mr. Rockefeller's advisers, who 
disliked landmarkism, and with it Dr. Burleson who favored 
it, to have Dr. Burleson removed." That was to say, if Dr. 
Burleson were out of the way, more of Rockefeller's money 
would be available for Baylor University! 

Witness A. M. Johnson further testified that Defendant G. W 
Truett, in 1892, while canvassing for Baylor University, called 
him out of The Texas Baptist Herald office into a vacant room 
and told him that "Dr. Burleson had been misappropriating the 
funds of Baylor University, and that the Trustees would be com- 
pelled to remove him from the Presidency." These statements 
Defendants B. H. Carroll and G. W. Truett denied. 

The testimony of Plaintiff's witness, J. L. Whittle fully con 
firms the testimony of A. M. Johnson. Plaintiff S. A. HaydeE 
also testified that Dr. A. M. Johnson had told him of Defendants 
Carroll's and Truett's statements and that he, Plaintiff, asked 
Defendant Truett if there was a move on foot to depose Dr. 
Burleson, and that Defendant Truett answered: "Unless Dr. 
Burleson submits to the Trustees they will have to remove him. 

The article of Defendant B. H. Carroll, published in the Bap- 
tist Standard, July, 1897, and the address of the trustees publish- 
ed in the Standard and in pamphlet, fully corroborate the testi- 
mony of Plaintiff's witnesses and in the estimation of the jury, 
Court and spectators, was conclusive. 

Dr. Burleson was far from the spirit of resentment. He was 

a man of Roman honor, and hence assailed in his "honor" by 

Defendant B. H. Carroll, after he had been deposed from the 

presidency of Baylor University after 47 years' service, begging 

three more years of incumbency that he might fill out a long 



320 THE COMPLETE 

cherished ambition of rounding out a half century, it wa tId- 

■' en 
ful to him even in the extreme to be published before the world 

as a man of "dishonor," through the Baptist Standard id in 
circular form with no possible avenue by which to defend him- 
self. He sent his reply to the Standard, but he was refured the 
right to reply on the ground that he had referred io S. A. Hayden 
in complimentary, or at least, commendatory terms. 

Dr. Burleson died without ever being able to answ .r the 
charges of Defendants Carroll, Gambrell, Cranfill, True t and 
others, made through the Baptist (?) Standard (?) and circu- 
lars, which broke his heart (not his spirit), and hastened his 
death. It was in God's sight murder in the first degree. It was 
the cruelest betrayal of a good old man in the history of Baptists. 
It is doubtful whether its parallel can be elsewhere foun i. Still, 
although Dr. Burleson's nerves were by this time shattered, his 
spirit was unbroken. Here are statements he penned before 
he died: 

Referring to Dr. Burleson's so-called "contract," Defendant 
Carroll wrote the following infamous libel, and published it in 
the Standard, which refused Dr. Burleson the right of reply: 

"So the document reads. It is a straight-out annual contract 
expressly stipulating 'for the year,' and expressly placed under 
the conditions of payment applying to professors doing regular 
class work. The point was clearly made in the Board that we 
had no authority to pension or to go beyond the annuj contract. 
And he (Burleson) himself expressly said to the Board that he 
accepted it only for one year, that is, until June, 1898 (He had 
done no such thing.) Until that date both parties are bound 
to fulfill their mutual engagements by every- consideration of 
honor that can bind covenant-keeping, honest and Christian 
men. The parties themselves can not violate them, or seek to 
violate them, without palpable dishonor." 

Dr. Burleson was seeking to have this so-called contract set 
aside by the Convention to meet October, 1897. So this "seek- 
ing" itself was, so Defendant Carroll alleged, "palpable dishon- 
or." Two years later, in a private letter, which has been placed 



CONSPIRACY T B [ A L 32 1 

at *_/ disposal, Dr. Burleson wrote: 

"It is claimed that I have "violated my contract" made with 
the L ^ustees electing me President Emeritus for Life, intended 
as a Ji great honor and kindness to me." I ask every honest man 
to re^d carefully my words of acceptance: 

"My dear brethren, I wish, in all kindness and love, to say 
this is a sad innovation on all the laws and usages of Baylor 
University for 46 years, and by which she has achieved her use- 
fulness and glory. And I solemnly fear that great evil will re- 
sult from such innovation. But to decline and dissolve my con- 
nection with Baylor University, for which I have sacrified 46 
years e£ ceaseless toil and $18,000 inherited from my father and 
father-in-law, would bring irreparable damage on my life purpose 
in founding a great Baptist University. I will, therefore, accept 
the position assigned me, and give it a fair trial, and do all in 
my poVer to advance the glory of Baylor University." 

I felt utterly outraged at the temporary success of all this 
scheming; "the violation of the laws and usages of Baylor Uni- 
versity for 46 years." It had culminated in my being deposed 
from my office. I had said that "I would not accept an election 
for life." Dr. Carroll knew it. To elect me in the face of my 
statement he knew would place me in a dilemma. I would 
either "have to go back on my word or decline and give his 
scheme complete triumph. My friends advised me not to play 
into his hands to the injury of the University. Deep down in 
my heart I determined by God's grace to test the validity of 
this scheming and do all in my power to advance "the glory of 
Baylor University." This appeal to the Baptists of Texas to 
know w [gther they will put a premium upon this scheming am- 
bition c,; Dr. B. H. Carroll is part of the "trial" and it is sub- 
mitted as to whether the methods I employ are "fair." Dr. Car- 
roll himself does not consider my letter of acceptance as con- 
clusive; for he tries to strengthen it by citing the "prayers and 
tears at the close of the meeting." Nor did I say in my letter 
that I would sit with closed lips a whole year while this schem- 
ing went on. Nor did I say a word about the "one year" of the 
so-called contract. I accepted for a "fair trial," and this is 
what I am doing and will continue to do until the Baptists of 
Texas shall settle.it at Weatherford. I beg to assure Dr. Carroll 
and the Trustees who act under him, that I am praying daily 
that God will take away the boundless ambition of his heart 
and enable the honest but misguided Trustees to see what is 
their whole duty. More anon." RUFUS C*. BURLESON. 

Waco, July 30, 1897. 



322 



THE COMPLETE 



Again Dr. Burleson writes: 

"While Dr. Carroll darkly hints at a "worse ruin" that threat- 
ens me, meaning, as I understand it, my expulsion from the 
First Baptist Church at Waco, I will answer to his threatened 
charges any day. He has made the last few years of my life 
the most wretched I have ever known, prostrating me once by 
his cold, cruel, concealed and unrelenting selfishness until my 
very life seemed almost at an end. He now points to the ner- 
vous prostration he has wrought by his scheming against my 
character and office, as justification of my removal. If I had 
been the old man with failing faculties and decaying mental 
and moral powers that he pretends to believe, what course 
could he have taken more cruel and heartless than the publica- 
tion of my name before the world as either "a fool or a knave?" 

R. C. BURLESON. 

Waco, July 30, 1897. 

But Defendant B. H. Carroll denied the truth of Dr. Bur- 
leson's statements, claiming that Dr. Burleson's mental or moral 
machinery was out of gear, presenting the damaging alterna- 
tive of Mental Infirmity or Moral Obliquity. The mental in- 
firmity unproven, the moral obliquity logically followed. Leon- 
ard Magee was a Trustee of Baylor University. Defendant 
Carroll was his favorite. Magee advocated zealously the removal 
of Dr. Burleson from the Presidency of Baylor University and 
the election of Defendant B. H. Carroll. This was kept up for 
years. So outrageous had this become that those who were best 
acquainted with it could bear it no longer, and at the Convention 
at Marshall, 1894, threatened Magee's removal from the Trustee- 
ship. Judge J. L. Whittle, Rev. L. S. Knight and others were 
on the Committee to nominate the Trustees, and the Trustees 
were to elect a president. Defendant B. H. Carroll, evidently 
scheming to displace Dr. Burleson, retaining Magee for his own 
promotion, resorted to "private interviews" with members of 
the Commitee to retain Magee. 

Statement of Judge J. Li. Whittle. 

Sulphur Springs, Texas, April 4, 1897. 
Bro. Carroll met me in the portico at his boarding- house not 
far from the Baptist meeting house in Marshall when and where 
I was engaged in a conversation with Bro. J. T. S. Park, and 
said to me: "You are one of a Committee to nominate a Board 
of Trustees for Baylor University." At the same time he asked 
me to walk with him up stairs to his room, which I did, where 
we were seated together without any other person being present. 
He then said that he wanted to talk with me about retaining 
Bro. McGee on said Board, and gave as a reason that he, McGee, 
was the only representative farmer who was a member of the 
Board and that a large element of people should be represented, 
-and that McGee was a very efficient man and was a very weal- 



C O 1ST SP1 B A C Y T !! I A I. X Y<.6 

thy man and was able aand willing - , and had given heretofore 
all f his time and attention to the welfare of the University; 
to which reasons I assented, and said in my mind that as a mem- 
ber of the Committee I should favor his retention on the Board. 
Bro. Carroll then proceeded to give another reason why he should 
be retained prefacing that reason with the statement that Dr. 
Burleson was very much opposed to McGee's retention on the 
Board; that Burleson said that McGee was too meddlesome and in- 
terfered with affairs that didn't concern him and especially with 
affairs of finance, but that if McGee was not retained on the 
Board it would make him mad and especially mad at Dr. Burleson, 
and that he, McGee, would expose Dr. Burleson to the public. 
That he, Carroll, didn't want Dr. Burleson exposed, and gave 
this as an additional reason for wanting McGee retained on the 
Board, stating at the same time that he had the confidence of 
McGee and could control him, and prevent him from vexing Bur- 
leson if he should be retained on the Board of Trustees, and that 
in order that "the old Doctor" might not be exposed and might 
have a tranquil setting sun in the end of his career, he hoped 
the Committee would retain McGee." This last reason of Dr. 
Carroll's changed my mind, and I decided that if Burleson had 
been doing anything ugly and that under certain contingencies 
McGee would expose him, I, as a member of the Committee, 
would try to place him in a position to make the expoistion. I 
was then, as I am now and have been for thirty years a friend 
to Burleson and felt like it would be humiliating to me as well 
as to Dr. Burleson to retain anyone on that Board under the 
lash. 

Our committee met in a few hours after this conversation 
and made up their report of the names recommended as members 
of the Board of Trustees leaving McGee out. 

J. L,. WHITTLE. 
Statement of Rev. S. L,. Knight. 

Alvarado, Tex., April 27, 1897. 

I remember that at Marshall Bro. B. H. Carroll called me 
out privately and told me he wanted to talk with me about 
retaining Bro. McGee on the Board of Trustees for the Uni- 
versity. He made the same plea and arguments to me there 
that are contained in Bro. Whittle's statements. Afterwards he 
Icalled me to his room and made the same statements to me 
again saying he did not want Dr. Burleson exposed for the Board 
could not defend him. This is about what I remember about 
the matter and conversation at Marshall. 

L. S. KNIGHT. 

Again Dr. Burleson writes: 

"It grieves me to say this, but as I will show later on, this 
policy of making statements purely for purposes of policy, when 
the facts are known to be the reverse of his statements, has 
gradually grown upon Dr. B. H. Carroll until it has become a 
habit. I will not say that he wilfully, consciously and pur- 
posely habitually utters falsehoods, realizing them to be false- 
hoods, but I do say, deliberately and knowingly, that no state- 
ment that he makes where his passions, prejudices or ambitions 
are involved, is reliable. 

This fact may arise from a morbid and long indulged habit 
of ambition, coupled with a physical infirmity which physicians 
admit does sometimes involve the intellectual perceptions of 
moral questions, without affecting the strength of the thinking 
faculties themselves. This has been aggravated by a morbid 
taste for reading novels of every description, covering the 



324 THE COMPLETE 

larger portion of his life, covering at times by his own boast a 
novel a day for months and years in succession. It would be 
unchristian in me to make these statements in the public prints 
had it not become necessary by his own publications and the 
disaster, confusion and disgrace into which he has, on account 
of his well known influence, thrown our denomination. While 
professing extreme piety and a willingness to die for peace he 
will be seen, upon reflection, to have been identified with every 
quarrel that has marred the life and work of the Baptists of 
Texas." 

Again Dr. Burleson wrote: 

"I fear all efforts for the present to restore peace and har- 
mony are hopeless, especially any plans or efforts that I might 
suggest. It is a mournful fact that !Dr. Carroll and his co- 
laborers are as much intent upon my ruin as they are upon Dr. 
Hayden's, simply because I contend with all my might that the 
only hope of prosperity for the Baptist cause in Texas is to fol- 
low strictly the Constitution, and the old plans adopted by the 
Texas Baptists 50 years ago. That Constitution required that 
there should be the strictest economy, and the most rigid equal- 
ity in the distribution of mission money, and especially that we 
should report every dollar received and how and where expena 
ed. At an early day we observed these rules so rigidly that I 
acted as Corresponding Secretary for seven years and toiled 
indefatigably to discharge this important office in connection 
with my pastoral and educational work and never received one 
cent pay, and our venerable brother, Rev. J. W. D. Creath, our 
first general agent, would only receive first, $400 and then $600 
a year as his salary, because that was as much as we could pay 
our missionaries. Now they insist on the Corresponding Secre- 
tary having $2,500 salary, with a clerk at $900, and a typewriter 
at $50 a month, a niece at a dollar a day, and with all his ex- 
penses and office rent paid, while the poor, struggling Mission- 
aries on the frontier get $400. And it makes them furiously 
mad for Dr. Hayden and others to suggest any modification of 
these extortionate salaries for officers and starving rates for our 
missionaries. Dr. B. H. Carroll gets $2500 a year and he wishes 
his brother and others to be paid thus extravagantly, and they 
are determined as they suggest to "put the knife to the throat" 
of every man that opposes their ruinous and extravagant or- 
ganized work. The result is sad dissension, and ruin is threat- 
ening Baylor University and all of our Educational and Mis- 
sionary work. Yours affectionately, 

RUFUS C. BURLESON. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 325 

Defendant Carroll swore on the Trial that Dr. Burleson was 
not on Plaintiff Hayden's side of the question, which also put 
Defendant Carroll at a great disadvantage, for Dr. Burleson was 
absolutely and notoriously on the side of Reform from the be- 
ginning. Indeed, it is not improbably that he is the first member' 
of the Board to speak of Reform. But the Beneficiaries never saw 
Dr. Burleson's defense. They were told by Defendants that it 
was a sin to read The Herald, and the plausible work of death 
went on. Leonard Magee, a farmer, was made a trustee at 
the suggestion of Defendant Carroll on the ground that while 
lawyers, doctors and other professions were represented on the 
Board of Trustees, there was not a farmer on the list. This 
was plausible, even forcible. Magee was put on. For this 
Magee felt apparently under obligations to Defendant Car- 
roll, for he persistently, year in and year out, insisted on Dr. 
Burleson's removal and the election of Defendant B. H. Carroll to 
be President, urging as a reason that Dr. Burleson was em- 
bezzling the funds of Baylor University! Note the persistent 
purpose. Defendant Carroll constructively charged Dr. Burleson 
with embezzlement. At Marshall Defendant Carroll interviewed 
the Committee to nominate the Trustees of Baylor University, 
urging that Leonard Magee be retained on the Board, alleging 
that "if Magee was not reappointed it would anger him, he 
would expose Dr. Burleson and the Board would be unable to 
defend the aged President! In other words, by clear implication, 
Magee's charge of embezzlement against President Burleson 
was true. At the Trial, Defendant Carroll would not say on 
oath what he had said to Witnesses J. L. Whittle, L. S. Knight 
and J. C. F. Kyger in private conversation. On the contrary, 
under the corkscrew process of my attorneys, he was emphatic 
that Dr. Burleson "was one of the purest, most honest, most 
honorable men that ever lived!" He could not find words too 
strong. That Court Trial was valuable because it forced a 
constructive retraction of all the charges Defendant B. H. Car- 
roll had made against Dr. R. C. Burleson. And he has been 
repeating that ever since, the latest being at the last Convention 



326 T II E COMPLETE 

at Dallas, November 17th, 1905, when he eulogized Dr. Burleson; 
- to the highest heavens. But this charge of embezzlement was 
passed round pending the campaign for the removal of Dr. Bur- 
leson and used in the campaign in the most cowardly manner 
by Defendant Carroll's admirers and friends. For Instance, 
Rev. S. F. Murphy, pastor of Big Springs Church, Dallas County, 
which was in 1897 about to pass resolutions favoring Dr. Bur- 
leson's restoration to the Presidency of Baylor University from 
which he had, at the instigation of Defendant B. H. Carroll, been 
removed, after the resolution had been read in the Church, arose 
from the moderator's chair and said substantially: "Breth- 
ren, if you knew all the facts you would not adopt the resolu- 
tion. Dr. Burleson has been appropriating the funds of Baylor 
University to his own private use and nothing but the mercy 
of the Trustees keeps him out of the penitentiary!" This in- 
famous slander was peddled out by Defendants Carroll and 
Truett, as proven by Witness J. L. Whittle, A. M. Johnson and 
others! Murphy himself was forced to concede it, before the 
Dallas County Association, at its last session at Grand Prairie, 
in 1897, in the hearing of Defendants Truett, Gambrell and 
the whole congregation! 

The question arises, why should Defendant Carroll urge the 
retention of Trustee Magee who was urging Dr. Burleson's re- 
moval? The plea of Defendant Carroll himself was the fact 
as alleged by Defendant B. H. Carroll, that "if Magee were re- 
moved, it would anger him to expose Dr. Burleson and the Board 
could not defend him." And according to Judge Whittle's testi- 
mony, Defendant Carroll added that he "could control Magee 
and he wanted Dr. Burleson's sun to go down without a cloud 
on it!" He could not do that if Magee were removed, for the 
anger of Magee would provoke him to'expose Dr. Burleson's sins! 
The committee refused to re-elect Magee. But Magee did not 
expose Dr. Burleson!!! 

That vindicated Dr. Burleson, if he had needed it. 

The Herald constantly notifying the denomination of the fact 
and calling attention to the steps leading up to Defendant Car- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 327 

roll's ultimate designs, lie was forced to publish the state- 
ment: "I will not accept the presidency of Baylor University." 
"I will not accept." He conceded with manifest unction that he 
could get it. His friends urged it. He urged his friends' promotion 
to positions where they could effectually help it, and after these 
things were so continually cited before the denomination that 
his election would have turned prediction into prophecy, he pub- 
lished, "I will not accept," etc. 

When Dr. Burleson had been removed, no president was for a 
long time elected. The vacancy became a wonder. Dr. Burleson, 
who had been president forty-seven years, asked to be reinstated 
till he had "rounded out his half century," for which he had for 
a lifetime cherished the worthy wish. Now, seventy-five years 
old, his desire for this goal of a long and arduous life became 
a passion. It was the light on the mountain-top of a setting 
sun. It was a small request. It required only three years more. 
Young men like Professor Lattimore were ready and anxious to 
stay up the venerable President's hands. His face was towards 
the west. His form was bending to the gale. He cherished the 
gaze of the noble cloud of witnesses who had applauded him 
from earth and sky. But, no! Time and again Defendant Car- 
roll ascended the presidential pole almost to the vacant roost. 
Time and again The Texas Baptist Herald had •"shoclad" him 
down. It was a perplexing problem, which were better — to pur- 
sue the slander to the point of profit in the presidential chair, or, 
which were worse, to acknowledge The Texas Baptist Herald a 
prophet? It passed perplexity into a distressing annoyance. The 
tall form of Saul was once again in history before the faithful, 
humble prophet, without even now the grace of confession or 
the strength to request that he "be honored before the people." 

Dr. Burleson, Being Dead, Yet Speaketh. 

The following letter of Defendant B. H. Carroll, from away 
back, asking favors of Dr. Burleson, has been placed at Plaint- 
iff's disposal. Notice the date: 



328 THE COMPLETE 

Caldwell, Texas, December 19, 1860. 
Elder R. C. Burleson: 

Dear Sir — I am somewhat loth to trouble you about my busi- 
ness, so early after your affliction; but circumstances demand 
instant attention to the profession which I have temporarily 
adopted. It may be on account of several causes, that I can not 
even now obtain the situation here, or that I may not want it. 
In either case, however, I will want recommendations from the 
Faculty, and more especially on account of my age and want of 
experience in school-teaching. I have them already from Profes- 
sor Leland in regard to my mathematical studies. But I will be 
under many obligations to the remainder of the Faculty for any 
similar assistance they can consistently render me. Such recom- 
mendations as my qualifications, moral and mental, deserve, I 
would like to obtain from you and Professor R. B. Burleson; I 
mean general recommendations. I will apply to Dr. Wallace 
for those in regard to the languages. Let me hear from you at 
the very earliest opportunity. Your pupil, 

(In haste.) B. H. CARROLL. 

He wanted his "mental qualifications." He wanted the other 
professors to say things for him in regard to the "languages' 
when he knew only English! 

He got the favors! Nine years later, he wrote the following 
in Dr. Burleson's behalf, which letter has been voluntarily placed 
at my disposal. It will indicate that Dr. Burleson knew his man, 
as he kept his letter for over thirty years: 

Waco, Texas, December 7, 1869. 

Dear Friend and Brother: 

* As president of the Alumni, I avail myself cf this means of 
corresponding with you, feeling that no student of Rufus Bur- 
leson will be without interest in the matter presented. I ad- 
dress it to your heart and conscience, hoping that it will not 
only awaken happy reminiscences of the past (He guards against 
reminiscences of the future), but a prompt response that wilJ 
•practically evince that gratitude and regard we have all so often 
expressed. Let me then call away your mind a moment from 
the press of the present, to drop a tear for the past and pro 
vide against a fearful contingency in the future. You are doubt- 
less aware that our former President, Dr. R. C. Burleson, aided 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 329 

by a faculty unsurpassed in the State, is struggling here with 
all the ardor and self-sacrificing zeal of his nature to build up 
a great central Baptist institution. You must know the strength 
of that ardor and zeal, for your heart must tell you that you have 
been a recipient of his bounty. Your honesty will admit that the 
payment of tuition does not absolve a student from those deli- 
cate obligations, that can not be classed with Greek and Latin 
You are also doubtless aware that nearly twenty years of his 
devotion to sanctified education has largely benefited our whole 
State, and especially the scores and hundreds who have enjoyed 
his instructions; and yet in all this long and wasting battle, that 
has furrowed his brow and silvered his hair, in his devotion to 
others, he has ignored the allurements of wealth and the sugges- 
tions of want until in his old age he finds himself homeless and 
moneyless, and, like our Savior, with the prospect of a borrowed 
tomb before him. Other States are eager to enjoy the advant- 
ages of his vast experience and devotion to education, and are 
bidding high. You remember how Union University at Murfrees- 
boro, Tennessee, sought him. But recently Louisiana has of 
fered more than $4,000 for his services as preacher and teacher. 
Do you say he ought to go? I reply, can we give him up? I 
need not ask you to consider the irreparable loss it would be 
to your State; the crying shame to Texas, and especially to his 
old students, for him to be driven away for want of support. 

When we are gone and our posterity claim him, shall it again 
be said: 

"Seven cities claimed a Homer dead 
In which the living Homer Jacked his bread." 
He loves Texas with the accumulated love of twenty years. 
He is the warp and woof of our history. Shall we wear him out? 
The very rivers of Texas, that have so often been divided by 
his baptisms, cry out against it. From the Sabine to the Rio 
Grande, from the Cross Timbers to the Island City, he has 
flashed his eye and prayed and hoped and trusted that all this 
Empire State, land of prairies and flowers, should be sanctified 
and ennobled by an education that would give to her sons glory 
and recompense when Alamo and Goliad would be forgotten. 1 
appeal to you, my friend and brother, by the hallowed associ 
ations of the past, and ask you earnestly, beseechingly, tear- 
fully, shall dire necessity drive him away? Or must he die in 
the dust and debris of perished hopes, with no monument but 
ingratitude to tell how, miserably unrequited, passed away one 



330 THE COMPLETE 

whose name challenges comparison for religious and educational 
benefit conferred? Scores of his old students have resolved to 
rally to his aid. Will you be one? The Trustees and citizens 
of Waco are awakening to their true interests, and have resolved 
to raise as early as possible $50,000; $10,000 for buildings and 
$40,000 for endowment. Will not every student of our beloved 
and venerable President do all he can in this direction. The 
agent, Rev. Thos. P. Lockett, may visit your section. Will you 
introduce him to the friends of education? 

But the consummation of this plan requires time; perhaps 
years. And our beloved President needs immediate and active 
aid. The debts he contracted while at Baylor University press 
him sorely, but dearkening, with unmerited contumely, his last 
days, which should be his brightest. By a concentrated effort ot 
his friends and old students, all these evils may be avoided, him 
saved for Texas, and our hearts from vain remorse. If one-third 
of the 900 whom he has instructed would only exert themselves, 
they could send 300 paying pupils to Waco by the first Monday in 
February, 1870. Thus all present expenses would be defrayed, 
and our beloved teacher relieved from embarrassment, in a way 
most gratifying to him. There are thousands of young ladies 
and gentlemen in Texas needing just such facilities as Waco af- 
fords. Are there not two or three near you? But I desire to 
suggest a plan for your consideration and action. If each of the 
900 students educated would contribute $5, $4,500 would be real- 
ized, to be appropriated to the purchase of a home in Waco for 
our dear President. If 100 would give $20, $2,000 would be real- 
ized. This, then, is our plan for immediate relief. Will you 
confer with us immediately, contributing, God seeing you, fifty, 
one hundred, twenty, or even five dollars, as your heart and cir- 
cumstances may prompt. In reply, address, 

HARVEY CARROLL, President Alumni, Waco, Texas. 

This was about the man who had, after nearly forty years of 
fidelity, self-sacrifice and friendship, been guilty, as Defendant 
Carroll put it, of "palpable dishonor" in violating a so-called 
"contract" that Dr. Carroll had prepared as a hangman prepares 
a gallows. 

When this 1869 letter was written, Dr. Burleson was only 
about fifty years old, and yet his grateful beneficiary refers tb 
his "old age" as finding him homeless and moneyless, like the Sa- 
vior with "a prospect of a borrowed tomb before him." Anything 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 331 

lor his old friend. While he was advancing him he was even 
picturing him in this letter "with furrowed brow and silvered 
hair," when there was scarcely a gray hair in his head. "Must 
he_die amidst the death of perished hopes, with no monument 
but ingratitude to tell how miserably unrequited passed one 
away," etc. Even when this 1869 letter was written, Dr. Bur- 
leson was in his prime, and had not poured his wife's patri- 
mony of $15,000 or $20,000 into Baylor University. Had he died 
then, so far from a borrowed tomb, the money he later put into 
Baylor University, under Defendant Carroll's very eye, when De- 
fendant Carroll stepped from under, would have been sufficient 
to build for him a mausoleum such as no man in the South has 
ever had built over his ashes. But such letters as this he wrote 
then for one who was advancing him. Later, Defendant Car- 
roll set on the grand old man Defendants Cranfill, Hanks and oth- 
ers for their similar service. It was these, and such as these, 
witnessed for years, that led Dr. Burleson to write that, "where 
Defendant Carroll's ambition is involved, his statements are 
wholly unreliable," as these and other letters, and his testimony 
in the court house, fully reveal. 

Statement of Rev. J. C. F. Kyger. 

Rev. S. A. Hayden, Dallas, Texas: 

Having just read an article in The Texas Baptist Standard 
of July 22 by Dr. B. H. Carroll in which Dr. Carroll holds up 
before the denomination the character of Dr. Burleson, shutting 
him up, to the alternative of incapacity for moral action or dis- 
honor, I am constrained to here state that nothing but so grave 
an effort to injure the character of the man whom next to my 
father I love and honor more than any other living man, would 
induce me to make public. I make the statement that follows 
with all the solemnity of an oath: 

1. Soon after I had closed a meeting of great spiritual power 
at Leon Church, in Hill County, Hillsboro Association met with 
this Church. Dr. B. H. Carroll attended this Association. This 
was in August, 1894, two months before the Marshall Con- 
vention. There was strong opposition to Dr. Carroll and the 
management of the Board. As I had just closed a meeting, as 
stated, Dr. Carroll approached me and asked me to take a col- 
lection for State Missions, saying that he would feel gratified if 
I could secure $50 cash collection. After some conversation with 
him I took the collection which amounted to more than $350 in 
cash and pledges. ^ , ^ ,, ,., 

2 While Dr Carroll was soliciting me to take the collection, 
I opened my heart to him and said to him, substantially, as fol- 
lows- That I considered Bro. Leonard McGee, Trustee of Baylor 
University, as doing Dr. R. C. Burleson a great wrong in speaking 
of him so disrespectfully to the students, teachers and friends 
of the Univer^itv, and thnt I considered it an outrage on the 
grandest and truest of men and that I felt that he (McGee) 
ought to be removed. To this Dr. Carroll replied substantially: 



332 THE COMPLETE 

That he would have McGee removed at the Marshall meeting. 
Greatly elated by this promise, I was all the more ready to 
comply with Dr. Carroll's urgent request to take the mission 
collection and accordingly purposely missed my train to my meet- 
ing, then going on at Gholson, necessitating my traveling all 
night to reach my appointment next day. 

3. Imagine my chagrin when at Marshall I found that he 
(Carroll) had privately urgently insisted on the retention of 
McGee as Trustee of Baylor University, giving among the rea- 
sons, as stated to me by members of the committee, that the 
displacement of McGee would offend him and he would make 
known dark deeds in Dr. Burleson's life which would prove his 
ruin. I told members of the committee that Dr. Burleson had 
felt that Dr. Carroll had retained McGee specially because of 
McGee's treatment of him (Burleson) and that I had expressed 
as much to Dr. Carroll, and I told them that I considered such 
arguments as those employed by Dr.- B. H. Carroll as a species 
of blackmailing, insinuating that the good name and fame of 
Dr. Burleson consisted in keeping from the public his sins. 

4. It is a well known fact that the committee displaced Bro. 
McGee for the reason, as some of them say, that they did not 
wish to cover up anything against the character of Dr. Burleson, 
giving McGee an opportunity to explode whatever dark things 
were in the life of Dr. Burleson, which Dr. Carroll claimed that 
he (Carroll) wanted concealed.- 

5. I met Dr. Carroll during the convention and called his at- 
tention to his promise to me at the Hillsboro Association to re- 
move from the office of Trustee Leonard McGee to which he 
replied that he only referred in his promise to me to McGee's re- 
moval from the collectorship of the University. 

This statement as already indicated is made in view of the 
fact that an effort is being made in the public prints to damage 
and ruin the reputation of one of the purest and best men I have 
ever known and who has been the friend of my youth and whom 
every true loyal Baptist in Texas loves to honor. He shall never 
be dishonored either by my silence or my consent. 

JNO. C. F. KTGER. 
Waco, Texas, July 29, 1894. 

There are some who will ask, What good does the narration 
of these unpleasant facts do? Think for a moment, and you will 
see. There are hundreds of young ministers who now feel, and 
will feel that these things are the proper things for ministers 
to do. We are in an age of reformation. The axe is laid at the 
root of the trees. The New Testament is prolific of such cases 
as well as the Old. Cain's fratricide with his brother's blood 
crying from the ground; Noah's drunkenness with his recorded 
shame; Lot's incest and his consequent disgrace; Esau's sensual- 
ity and the loss of his birthright; Jacob's avarice and the fear 
of his brother Esau; David's sin and Absalom's rebellion and 
death; Solomon's licentiousness, idolatry on the high places, a 
broken kingdom and a captive people; Saul's ambition and his 
defeat by the Philistines, his death by his own sword, and the 
wailing at Giboa; Peter's lie; Mark's cowardice, and the 



C O N S P I R A C> Y TRIAL 333 

whole sad portrayal of human infirmity, are Bible records, given 
for our edification and caution. 

Unless something is done to arrest this down-grade in morals, 
our churches will be as desolate as the mountains of Ephraim 
or the valley of Jehosaphat. 

It is all on account of Covetousness, Ingratitude and Am- 
bition. 

Dr. Burleson explained the cause of this distemper of his 
former supporter and friend on the two-fold ground of Ingrati- 
tude and Ambition. 

Few people have understood the force of the one disease of 
Ingratitude. It is an abnormal condition of humanity, a species 
of insanity in a limited degree, and when reinforced by in- 
ordinate Ambition, balks at nothing to carry its ends. And it is 
not checked, but rather stimulated, that it has received benefits. 

Beaumont, writing on ingratitude, says: "As the deepest hate 
may spring from the most violent love, so the greatest ingrati- 
tude may arise from the largest benefits. It is said that Cicero 
was slain by one whom his oratory had defended." 

So great a poet as Goethe declares that "Ingratitude is always 
a kind of weakness. I have never seen that clever men have been 
ungrateful." 

And Bishop Hall explains the philosophy of it: "There be 
three usual causes of ingratitude, upon a benefit received, — envy, 
pride, covetousness; envy, looking more at others' benefits than 
our own; pride, looking more at ourselves, than the benefit; 
covetousness, looking more at what we would have than what 
we have." 

Favors increase it, as Seneca declares: "There are too many 
even of this sort, who, the more they owe, the more they hate. 
There is nothing more dangerous than to oblige those people; 
for when they are conscious of not paying the debt, they wish the 
creditor out of the way." 

That this Ingratitude is coupled with Ambition, is declared 



334 T HE COMPLE T E 

by South, who says: "You may rest upon this as an unfailing 
truth, that there neither is, nor ever was, any person remark- 
ably ungrateful, who was not also insufferably proud; nor any 
one proud who was not equally ungrateful." 

Our own Emerson confirms it in these words: "It is a great 
happiness to get off, without injury and heart-burning, from on^ 
who has had the ill-luck to be served by you. It is a very oner 
ous business, this of being served, and the debtor naturally 
wishes to give you a slap." 

Shakespeare, the great delineator of the human heart, says, 
with all strenuosity and intensity: "I hate ingratitude more in a 
man than lying, vainness, babbling, drunkenness, or any taint of 
vice, whose strong corruption inhabits our frail blood," 

Dean Swift endorses Montaigne in saying, "Ambition often 
puts men upon doing the meanest offenses; so climbing is per- 
formed in the same posture with creeping." The meanest things 
I have read in history are rivalled by the deeds done in this 
Conspiracy. "Ambition is a lust that is never quenched, grows 
more inflamed and madder by enjoyment;" so says Otway. 
Shakespeare calls it, "Vaulting ambition which overleaps itself." 
It is almost as by inspiration that Simms declares, "There is a 
native baseness in the Ambition which seeks beyond its deserts, 
that never shows more conspicuously than when, no matter how, 
it temporarily gains its object." 

Air Route To the Presidential Pole. 

A fire like this is not easily quenched. The Presidential chair 
was dear to his heart, like the scenes of our childhood. It was 
as hard to reach as the North Pole. All former attempts had 
been thwarted by the protestations of the deposed President 
himself, the well-grounded sibyls and monotonous "shoo, shoos" 
of The Herald. A hitherto unattempted passage must be trJpri 
Men must be elected president in succession until it went a-beg- 
ging. Then, rather than let the institution languish and die 
for the lack of a martyr, he would lie down and let the faculty 
and student body walk over his prostrate form to glory. Let 



CONSPIEAOY TRIAL 335 

obvious prophets prate, and Church Party serpents sibilate and 
shoo. The martyrdom would be all the more illustrious. For 
one to be born great, or to achieve greatness, it were better 
still to nave greatness thrust upon one. Get ready lor tb-j air 
passage to the Presidential Pole! Defendant Geo. W. Truett 
was elected President of Baylor University! He must accept. 
The interests of the institution depended upon it. He sought 
the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In University education he was 
scarcely a Sophomore. After "deep thought," after "every fiber 
of his being had been tested," and "every drop of blood been 
analyzed," he declined! Here was a calamity without a name! 
But one ray of hope, one pencil of auroral light glimmered like 
a will-o'-the-wisp on the arctic skies. Defendant J. B. Gambreli 
still remained! And the lot fell on him. He was in classical 
education a mere freshman. He "took the matter under prayer- 
ful (?) consideration." The classical atmosphere of presidential 
explorations bars English! So resort to Latin. Tempus fugit; 
time flies! But these Presidents-elect did not fly to a decision! 
With them time crawled! To be President, or not to be President. 
In the nearly half a century that chair of Dr. Burleson was a 
mortal coil, a tangled skein not to be unraveled with a jerk. 
Pending this oppressive suspension, the sibylline prophecies of- 
The Herald pointed the denomination to this balloon scheme out- 
lining itself on the sky, lone, wandering, but not hid. The Her- 
ald coursed this bouyant mid-air ship to the Presidential chair. 
A succession of elections and declinations would, by distressing 
repetitions of disappointments, force somebody to "sacrifice him- 
self" and take it. Who but he was equal to the sacrifice? Whose 
latitude of self-abnegation, or longitude of form prone upon the 
campus, could, like Dr. Maupertuis with Voltaire at Frederick's 
court, demonstrate the Flattening of the earth at the Poles as 
President of the Academy of Sciences? Voltaire ought to be here 
and Carlyle ought to be heard. The Herald, from history and 
observation, spied the airship and prophesied the election of 
Defendants Hanks, Cranfill and Lamkin, et id omne genus (we 
are still on classic ground), as electors and recusants. The Bap- 
tists of Texas were scanning the University heavens until this 



336 THE COMPLETE 

4 'black drop" on the aerial ocean was more talked of than a 
solar eclipse, a new comet, or Kepler's conjunction of the planets. 

The oaths of J. L. Whittle, A. M. Johnson, L. S. Knight and 
J. C. F. Kyger must therefore be met by Defendant B. H. Carroll, 
much to Plaintiff's advantage before the jury and the denomina- 
tion. Dr. Burleson is dead. He died of a broken heart. "Lift 
me up and let me look once more upon the walls I spent my life 
to build." The look was far to see. He was an exile beyond 
the campus lines. But the farther off from the place he loved, 
the nearer the Golden Gate was he. The shadows of life had 
grown long. The slope to the close of day was steep. The angle 
of vision of life's transitory interests drew to a point. The white 
sails of Death's barges on the river opened like shapely sheets 
of snow. Sun's rays never before found in the solar spectrum 
broke through. Gleams of amethyst, topaz, sapphire, chrysolite, 
jasper and chrysoprasus mingled their irridescent glories far from 
the bewitching City. The watchers said his eyes were glazed. 
It was the very glinting of the celestial light. The burden ot 
life, always heavy, was heaviest at the last. They felt to find 
his pulse. It had ceased. They put their hand on the thin wall 
that covered his heart, it was still. His face, long drawn by 
anguish, nestled into repose. Life's labors were ended. He was 
asleep! 

This painful case is not cited here to make any heart sad. 
It may be said that this portrayal is severe. But is it true? If 
The homage of Victoria repairs the disdain of Elizabeth. As for 
Elizabeth, she is probably there also, sculptured somewhere on 
the surbase, with Henry VIII., her father, and James I., her sue 
cessor — pygmies beneath the poet. The cannon booms, the cur- 
tain falls, they uncover the statue, which seems to say, 'At 
length!' and which has grown in the shade during three hundred 
years — three centuries; the growth of a colossus, an immensity. 
All the York, Cumberland, Pitt and Peel bronzes have been 
made use of in order to produce this statue; the public places 
have been disencumbered of a heap of uncalled-for metal-cast- 



OONSPIRAO/Y TRIAL 337 

ings; in this lofty figure have been amalgamated all kinds of 
Henrys and Edwards; the various Williams and the numerous 
Georges have been melted; the Achilles in Hyde Park has made 
the great-toe. This is fine; behold Shakespeare almost as great 
as a Pharaoh or a Sesostris. Bells, drums, trumpets, applause, 
hurrahs. 

"What then? 

"It is honorable for England, indifferent to Shakespeare. 

"What is the salutation of royalty, of aristocracy, of the army, 
and even of the English populace, ignorant yet to this moment, 
like nearly all other nations — what is the salutation of all these 
groups, variously enlightened, to him who has the eternal accla- 
mation, with its reverbration, of all ages and all men? What ori- 
son of the Bishop of London or of the Archbishop of Canterbury 
is worth the cry of a woman before Desdemona, of a mother be- 
fore Arthur, of a soul before Hamlet? 

"And thus, when universal outcry demands from England a 
monument to Shakespeare, it is not for the sake of Shakespeare; 
it is for the sake of England. 

"There are cases in which the repayment of a debt is of 
greater import to the debtor than to the creditor. 

"A monument is an example. The lofty head of a great man 
is a light. Crowds, like the waves, require beacons above them. 
It is good that the passer-by should know that there are great 
men. People may not have time to read; they are forced to see. 
true, whose is the severity? But it may be said that truth is not 
always just. Justice itself, paradoxical as it may sound, is not 
by itself just, because in the tender government of God, justice 
is but one attribute in His merciful nature. Justice is never 
just, unseasoned with mercy. "All the souls that are were 
forfeit once, and He who might the vantage best have took, 
found out a remedy." 

This book would be but partial without the whole truth and 
the season of mercy is for those whose plastic and tender minds 
are now and hereafter to form their covenant with the right and 



338 THE COMPLETE 

good and true forever. 

There are a thousand young men and young women in Baylor 
University, the hope, with the whole youth of our greater State, 
of our goodly land. They need to know the danger of unchastened 
aspiration and the misery it brings. May this chapter help to 
serve in some humble degree that worthy end. And may better 
things come to him who by grace, forgetting the. sorrow he 
caused, escape the penalty of it himself. 

It was, in God's sight, murder! May God forgive! 

Burleson — They Killed Him, and Built Him a Monument. 

"Suppose," says Victor Hugo, of Shakespeare, equally appli- 
cable to Burleson, "a monument. Suppose it splendid, suppose 
it sublime — a triumphal arch, an obelisk, a circus with pedestal 
in the center, a cathedral. No. people is more illustrious, more 
noble, more magnificent and more magnanimus than the English 
people. Couple these two ideas, England and Shakespeare, and 
make an edifice arise therefrom. Such a nation celebrating such 
a man; it will be superb. Imagine the monument-; imagine the 
inauguration. The Peers are there; the Commons give their ad- 
herence; the bishops officiate; the princes join the procession; 
the queen is present. The virtuous woman in whom the English 
people, royalist as we know, see and venerate their actual per- 
sonification — this mother, this noble widow, comes, with the 
deep respect which is called for, to incline masterful majesty be- 
fore ideal majesty; the Queen of England salutes Shakespeare. 
People pass by that way, and stumble against the pedestal; 
they are almost obliged to raise the head and to glance a little 
at the inscription. Men escape a book; they cannot escape the 
statue. One day on the bridge at Rouen, before the beautiful 
statue due to David d'Angers, a peasant mounted on an ass said 
to me, 'Do you know Pierre Corneille?' 'Yes,' I replied. 'So do 
I,' he rejoined. 'And do you know "The Cid"?' I resumed. 'No,' 
said he. To him, Corneille was a statue. 

This beginning in the knowledge of great men is necessary to 
the people. The monument incites them to know more of the 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 339 

man. They desire to learn to read in order to know what this 
bronze means. A statue is an elbow-thrust to ignorance. 

There is, then, in the execution of such monuments, popular 
utility as well as national justice. 

"To perform what is useful, at the same time as what is just, 
that will at the end certainly tempt England. She is the debtor 
of Shakespeare. To leave such a debt in abeyance is not a good 
attitude for the pride of a people. It is a point of morality that 
nations should be good payers in matters of gratitude. Enthusi- 
asm is probity. When a man is a glory in the face of his na- 
tion, that nation which does not perceive the fact astounds tke 
human race around." 



For the right against wrong, 
For the weak against the strong, 
For the poor who've waited long, 

For the brighter age to be; 
For the truth 'gainst superstition, 
For the Faith against tradition, 
For the hope, whose glad fruition, 

Our waiting eyes shall see. 

God give us men! A time like this demands 

Strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and ready hands, 

Men whom the lust of office does not kill; 

Men who possess opinions and a will; 

Men whom the spoils of office can not buy; 

Men who have honor — men who will not lie; 

Men who can stand before a demagogue 

And scorn his treacherous flatteries without winking; 

Tall men — sun-crowned — who live above the fog' 

In public duty and in private thinking. 



340 THE COMPLETE 

CHAPTER XXIX. 

A CHARITABLE VIEW OF PERJURY. 

Plaintiff pauses here to answer a question that has been asked 
perhaps a thousand times. And it is still being asked. The ques- 
tion is this "How do you account for the perjurious statements 
of so many men occupying the position of the Defendants?" 
To understand this sad state of the case one must consider, 
among other things, the following laws of human nature: 

1. Men who plead not guilty on charges known to them to be 
true, create the necessity of denying under oath every fact that 
tends to show them guilty. 

2. To rehearse what has already been stated in this book, the 
Attorney for Defendants, Gen. M. M. Crane, it was stated at the 
time and has never been denied, took them into his room in the 
Windsor Hotel, where he was then boarding, and instructed them 
that in order to their defence they — 

(1) Must have been free from malice. 

(2) Acted without agreement. 

(3) Believed the Challenge true. 

Unless these points be sustained they had no case. Hence they 
all with one accord swore that they had no malice, agreed to noth- 
ing among themselves, and voted for the Challenge because they 
believed "every word of it to be true." Then as each question 
arose, they were placed in the dilemma of having to contradict 
every witness who testified against them or confess their guilt. 
It is in this relation of cause and effect that a plea of not guilty 
involves the denial of every fact proving or tending to prove 
guilt. 

3. In logical relation to this comes the law of progression. 
Whoever denies a minor truth which seems immaterial, is landed 
ethically where he must deny a material truth, even when con- 
fronted by many highly respectable witnesses. This was notably 
illustrated in the denial of the statements of Revs. J. L. 
Whittle, L. S. Knight and J. C. F. Kyger by Defendant B. H 



CONSPIRAOY TRIAL 341 

Carroll and of Rev. A. M. Johnson, J. L. Whittle and S. A. Hay- 
den by Defendant Geo. W. Truett. Men reach a position in the 
course of a trial which if they do not deny, their case faHs, so 
deftly have the attorneys woven the web of proof around them. 
They flounder as horses in the quicksand, although their efforts 
to escape are more embarrassing than the verdict they seek to 
avoid. 

4. "The last weakness of man," says Lord Macaulay, "is 
the pride of consistency." When witnesses, who, having pleaded 
not guilty, have denied all the facts proving or tending to prove 
their guilt, come to positive, bald, palpable truth, which, if not 
denied, will convict them, they have laid the down grade line 
so totally and precipitously that conscience is stifled, judgment 
is blinded and they — deny. 

Sir John Newton discovered the phenomenon of the preces- 
sion of the equinoctial points in the retrograde motions of the 
moon, which move fifty seconds annually and complete the 
circuit of the heavens in 25,920 years. The law of precession 
holds in the realm of morals as well as in the realm of matter 
and the circuit of the moral zodiac is completed sometimes in 
the brief space of a court trial. 

So perjury is the logical end of their original plea of not 
guilty. The pleading was the ovum. The denial is the egg 
hatched out. In the final Confession of Judgment by the De- 
fendants they constructively admitted it all. 

5. But reinforcing these considerations is the power of Ex- 
ample. While Plaintiff's witnesses were "Under Rule," that is 
no witness must hear what any other witness testifies, the 
Defendants in law, may not be placed "Under Rule." Hence 
every Defendant heard what every other Defendant swore. Plac- 
ing one Defendant witness on the stand, the other Defendant Wit- 
ness heard his testimony. Defendant G. W. Truett had express- 
ed his astonishment that Plaintiff would go on the witness stand, 
"When" said he, "there are twenty of us that will contradict his 
testimony." This was before the Trial began. It was by the 



342 THE COMPLETE 

Defendants supposed to be safe to support each other in their 
testimony. In point of fact, it was their weakness. For when 
testimony of one Defendant was proven to be untrue, (which 
was often done by documents in his own handwriting), it 
tainted the testimony of all the others who had sought to bolster 
him on that particular point, thus each Defendant, as he came 
on to the witness stand, was embarrassed in his effort to sup- 
port the testimony of the Defendant witnesses who had preced- 
ed him. They inherited in succession the mistakes of all the 
other Defendants' witnesses who had preceded them. Hence it 
was the universal verdict of the jury and the spectators that 
every solitary witness, first or last, perjured himself. 

6. Finally, men are composite and variant in nature. Some 
men are influenced by ambition, some by avarice, some by hate, 
some by love, some by fear. The law defines conspiracy to be 
"an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful 
thing or a lawful thing in an unlawful manner." 

And "malice is that which prompts one person to Injure an- 
other from ill will or for the accommodation of some one who 
has ill will towards the injured person." Hence if any person 
joins a conspiracy and allows himself influenced to do an un- 
lawful act even against a person for whom he has no dislike, 
the law holds him guilty. A person may be influenced to in- 
jure a friend to accommodate another friend who is an enemy 
to the first. Applying this law it will be found that certain men 
are inspired by others and are under their control. Men who 
witnessed the Trial and have heard the Defendants preach, have 
asked the Plaintiff how he could reconcile the frequent false 
swearing of the Defendants with their professions of Christian- 
ity. And they have referred especially and often to Defendant 
G. W. Truett. The explanation invariably given has been based 
on the well known but little observed facts: 

First. Man regenerate consists of two parts which Paul 
calls the "carnal" and "spiritual," which are at war with each 
other. Sometimes the carnal predominates; at other times, the 
woman. Her moral instincts and religious principles are dis- 






CONSPIRAdY TRIAL 343 

spiritual. The fact that regenerate men sin at all, proves this. 
In the Conspiracy, the carnal predominated all throughout the 
Trial. Hence false swearing characterized the Defendants from 
the plea of not guilty at the beginning to the denial of the most 
palpable facts to the end. 

Another inclusive explanation has been invariably given. 
The wife becomes the alter ego of her husband. The purest ami 
best women are always with their husbands. What if you should 
tell your wife that on a certain day at a certain hour you com- 
mitted a crime. Your wife knows it. You tell her that your 
life depends on her testimony. Unless she swears an alibi 
for you, your life will be forfeited, her heart bereaved and her 
children orphaned and disgraced. She is a pious, God-fearing 
turbed. She feels that if you had justice you would not be put 
to death even under all the guilty facts. Because, the father 
of her children can do no wrong worthy of death. At least, 
her children, having done no wrong, are entitled to protection, 
no matter who is wrong. And she swears! So we see that in 
the alter egoism of souls, in the husband and wife, his plea of 
rot guilty is sustained by the oath of his pious wife. No mat- 
ter if all this is in violation of the Christian code. The stress of 
life obscures and eclipses the facts. 

And there are men that are women in nature. They are not 
without intellect, and such is Defendant Truett. There are 
more than one. And so there is one. In the analogy traced, his 
husbands are Defendants B. H. Carroll and J. B. Gambrell. As 
a wife for her husband, so Defendant Truett for his mentors. Wit- 
ness, his visit to Jacksonville against his confessed sense of pro- 
priety. 

This universal false swearing by the Defendants is thus 
accounted for on the Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde principle, which 
Robert Louis Stevenson means to ascribe to every man, the differ 
ence being in degree, not in kind. Inexperienced in the court 
house, the Defendants little dreamed of the calcium light to be 
turned on by the lawyers and law books under the rules of evi- 
dence. Having pleaded not guilty they were soon led into the 
radium effulgence of inevitable contradictions, and confusion in 



344 THE COMPLETE 

variably followed. They learned the truth of what Stephenson 
tays: "In God's law there is no statute of limitations." On the 
witness stand, also under the rules of evidence, there is no stat- 
ute of limitations. A statement once made and stenographed 
is a Ghost of Banquo to every mendacious witness. Metaphy- 
sically he can not get away from it. It pursues him as his 
shadow. 

"Our acts our angels are, or good or ill, 
The fateful shadows that walk by us still." 
Psychologically, he can not conceal himself. His soul turns 
State's evidence against him as he shows it to court, jury and 
spectators. A judge must be marble to conceal his astonish- 
ment at a whole storehouse of masques stripped by legal skill 
and legal learning from the Defendants before his eyes. And 
never a jury was impanneled that could nor one will be that 
can conceal all impression under such disclosures. This were 
impossible. Hence Defendant Cranfill wrote in a private letter 
now before the writer that one reason for his Confession o* 
Judgment was that he would have to be tried again before "An 
Unfriendly Court." 

On the 9th day of June, 1903, Defendant J. B. Gambrell wrote 
Rev. W. C. Bayless of Datura, Texas, a letter accounting for 
his conviction by saying: "I do not believe the Dallas court 
to be a just court at all." 

9. Finally, and included in the bther reasons, there is the 
duplicity in all human nature, which was organized by Ignatius 
Loyola into what is commonly known as Jesuitism. This code 
provides that one may answer part orally and part mentally 
and thus escape penalties of public opinion or of law, for sell 
or for others. Thus a witness saw his friend A kill his enemy 
B by stabbing him in the back with a dirk. He is asked: "Did 
you see A kill B?" He answers, "I did not," and repeats men- 
tally, "with a pistol." "But," says the attorney, "did you not 
see A stab B in the back with a dirk?" He answers: "I did 
not see A stab B with a dirk," and mentally adds, "with a white 
handle." (It was a black handle.) "But is it not a fact that 



C O N SPIRAOT T R I A T. 34 5 

you saw A thrust a black handled dirk or knife into B's back?" 
He answers: "I did not see A stab B in the back with a black 
handled dirk knife," mentally adding, "with his left hand." "But 
do you swear, so help you God, that you did not see A stab B 
or do anything to him whatever?" "I do swear, so help me 
God, that I did not see A do anything to B," adding mentally, 
'except for the promotion of the Redeemer's Kingdom." 

So every Defendant without a solitary exception, swore under 
mental reservation, which mental reservation was to use a com- 
mon expression, "corkscrewed" out of him, as a stopper is re- 
moved from a bottle, or more forcibly, as a tooth is extracted by 
a dentist. The inexperience of the witnesses in court and the 
ability of the lawyers to extract mental reservations and dis- 
sect self evasions, the coaching of Defendants by their able at- 
torneys as to the fatal effects of malice, agreement in what 
they did, and their "belief of the truth of the Challenge, every 
word of it," a thing impossible in any human being, and the plea 
at the outset of not guilty, the disposition of those who swore 
last to sustain the testimony of those who swore first, led all 
the Defendants into the mirror maze of false swearing, until they 
really could not have told for their lives what they had sworn. 
Their confusion was increased by the fact that their every word 
on the first Trial had been stenographed and published in the 
Conspiracy Trial Book. And seeing the embarrassment of their 
co-defendants in the second Trial, they gladly paid $1.00 for the 
book that they might refresh their memory as to what they had 
sworn. If there had been enough Defendants and Books, plaintiff 
could have made a fortune out of selling the Book to the De- 
fendants. 

It is no exaggeration to say that the whole population of 
Dallas, so far as they listened to the testimony, or talked witn 
those who listened, except, of course, the individuals immediate- 
ly connected with the Defendants, or immediately under their 
influence, will vouch for the truth of these statements even if 
they do not endorse the charitable explanations here given. Is 
this story unreasonable? It may be to those who did not wit- 



346 THE COMPLETE 

ness the Trial, but court, judge and spectators all agreed before 
the Trial ended that with some of the Defendants it 
was a matter of habit, with others of environment; with all, 
community of interest. The Baptist Press, of South Carolina, 
says: 

"Is lying a disease? A noted American medical expert de- 
clares that it is. He says that prevarication on the part of young 
children is due to "errors of perception and misinterpretation," 
and such lying is "the natural accompaniments of a life full of 
creative imagination and free from inhibition." 

This learned doctor says that lying is as much a disease as in- 
sanity — in fact, that it is a species of insanity. He states upon 
the authority of experts in the treatment of idiots that a preco- 
cious instinct among such is to deceive and misrepresent. 
Cases of insanity, and confirmed lying he considers alike a 
stigma of mental degeneration. 

In all children the tendency to misrepresent is discernible 
as soon as the psychic life becomes active, and it increases very 
rapidly for a few years, after which it gradually diminishes, dis- 
appearing at the age of puberty. But in abnormal cases, the 
tendency does not decrease, but grows with the development of 
the mind until it becomes a fixed habit of life. 

In such cases, our authority tells us, the persons who dis- 
play these abnormal symptoms should be placed under the care 
of medical experts, as they as much as cases of insanity and 
imbecility, belong entirely to the domain of the medico-legal psy- 
chiatry. 

We are inclined to believe that a confirmed habit of lying is 
a disease; but we are not ready to assent to all that this doc- 
tor asserts to be true. In fact, we feel that prevarication is a 
species of moral insanity instead of mental. God's Word puts 
a curse upon the liar, and a man does not lie because he cannot 
help it, but because he prefers to do so. 

The murderer often pleads insanity as an excuse for nis 
crime; but more often the lack of equilibrium is in the moral life 
rather than in the psychic." 

This is very like Dr. Burleson's charitable accounting for 
the well known mendacity, as Dr. Burleson declares, of Defend- 
ant Carroll. Their letters, their articles, their very prayers, 
betrayed them. They seemed to have conspired against them- 
selves. And for the time they enjoyed it. 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 34.1 

CHAPTER XXX. 

THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY. 

Conspiracy has always been treated by all Nations as one 
of the greatest of crimes, because it combines all the passions 
of human nature, good, bad and indifferent, into a violent and 
dangerous explosive. Nitre is an innocent salt by itself. Char- 
coal is one of the best of disinfectants. Sulphur is a valuable 
medicine. Each by itself is not only harmless, but beneficial. 
Combine the three and you have the deadly explosive of gun- 
powder with which the world has been deluged in blood. Every 
battlefield has been wreathed in the smoke of death by this 
awful combination. To make destruction doubly sure to inno 
cent elements, poisons are sometimes added. 

Conspiracy is, both from the divine and human standpoint, 
the dynamite of human passion, lawlessness and sin. All civ- 
ilized nations guard against it by the sorest fines and penalties. 
In Texas a truthful charge of bad cnaracter in any man does 
him the least harm, compared with its effects in older States, 
while an untruthful charge of bad character does him the most 
harm. This comes from the heterogeneous nature of our people, 
coming as they have from every State in the Union and leaving 
name, family ties and reputation, the shield and safeguard of 
character, behind. Stripped of his reputation at home from 
the absence of his good record, a good man is exposed to the 
shafts of slander while the bad man is protected by the lack of 
a knowledge of his unworthy record. Hence, in Texas the 
statutes prescribe the severest penalties for untruthful libel 
and protect to the fullest degree any statement however libel- 
ous, provided it be the truth, published in the interest of the 
truth. 

Conspiracies were condemned in the severest terms in the 
days of Moses. For one to encourage another to join him 
in a conspiracy to worship false Gods was punishable by death. 
Deut. viii-6. "Go not with a multitude to do evil." In the 
Roman Empire where law reached its highest development, 



348 THE COMPLETE 

conspiracy was the acme of turpitude. Lucius Junius Brutus, 
the Roman Consul whose own father and brother were put to 
death by Tarquin the Proud, having incited the populace to 
insurrection, drove Tarquin from Rome. But, observing that 
his own sons had joined a Conspiracy against the city, he 
ordered their execution and they were at once put to death. 
Marcus Junius Brutus, who joined Cassius in a Conspiracy to 
murder Julius Caesar, afterwards died by his own hand. The 
death of Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and, indeed, 
nearly all the assassinations of ancient and modern times, have 
been the result of the explosive power of human passions 
and pride — none of which, acting alone, would have gone to such 
dire lengths of crime. As the combination of men to accomplish 
good becomes almost omnipotent, so the combination of men 
to do an unlawful thing, or a lawful thing in an unlawful 
manner, becomes the most formidable and langerous phase of 
crime. A criminal unaided is limited in his power for evil. 
But when a number of men combine to commit crime, each 
drawing the influences of his associations, their combination 
coerces conscience, suppresses truth, dethrones justice, per- 
verts reason, ignores right, and tramples law under foot. All 
sense of justice is lost, the rabble is created, the mob organized 
and lynch law installed. It is the most dangerous form of 
crime known to civilization. It is not strange therefore that 
it is most dreaded by all civilized peoples and punished by the 
most extreme penalties. The first jury after hearing the testimony 
were wrought up to the highest degree of indignation by the 
awful outrage of the conspiracy and favored an average ver- 
dict of $75,000. And each subsequent jury became excited with 
the horror of the crime. 

A Conspiracy is always the coalescence of manifold motives 
for the accomplishment of an evil end. Aristotle in his book on 
Politics analyzes the nature of a Conspiracy as resulting from 
insult, fear, revenge, contempt, hate, avarice, ambition, love, 
religion, superstition and indeed every human motive and pas- 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 349 

sion and he cites in proof of this analysis many instances. Many 
of the Conspiracies of Persia and Greece, notably Artapanes 
against Xerxes from fear, Guion Dionysius the Younger from con- 
tempt, Cyrus against Astiages for the effeminacy of his life, 
Mithridates against Ario Bazanes from love of gain. Bold 
natures act from the love of power and faint natures from the 
love of ambition and fame. In most instances these various 
passions are combined to bring men together, the nature of 
the Conspiracy being gratifying to the several motives prompt- 
ing to united action. Aristophanes describes the demagogue 
Cleon as conspiring from the trade of the tanner to the ruler- 
ship of the Athenians, and confronts him in his humorous comedy 
of the knife with the sausage cutter as his opponent. Cicero 
made his fame as broad as the world and as enduring as time 
in his exposure of the Conspiracy of Cataline against his country 
when, with the help of two young Praetors, supported by brave 
and patriotic men, he captured the ambassadors of the Allobroges 
at the Mulvian bridge and found in their possession the traitor- 
ous letters from Lentulus to Cataline revealing the whole plot. 
By discovering and dissipating this Conspiracy he saved Rome 
and the lives of its citizens. 

A PRODUCT OF THE CONSPIRACY. 
The mere fact that, after the misappropriation of $10,000 
Mission funds by Defendant Cranfill, his co-defendants locked 
shields over him and declared that they would defend him with 
their last drop of blood, emboldened him to embark in what is 
now known as the Monumental San Jacinto Oil Swindle. This 
swindle involved, directly or indirectly, many of the best men 
in the land. It was among the incredibles that twenty or thirty 
eminent ministers would undertake to protect any one in the 
embezzlement of Mission money. So enthusiastic was this de- 
fense by so large and compact a system of clerical shields that 
Baptist ministers beyond the State felt that, under the circum- 
stances, the loss by investment of anything whatever that the 
Texas Board Party leaders endorsed, was an impossible con- 
tingency. Nothing had occurred like it before. How could it 



350 THE COMPLETE 

occur now? Pious r?) "Sunday Morning Thoughts" were dealt 
out as a gloze to the financial march being stolen upon the 
brethren. In all the meetings in and out of Texas, endorsements 
were given to "Doctor" Cranfill. At the Southern Convention 
at Hot Springs in 1900, President W. J. Northen, who sought 
as Socrates suggested: "to study to be what he wished to seem," 
called on, "Doctor" Cranfill to set the spiritual keynote for these 
faithful men in the great assembly! To those present informed 
it was an experience often felt in Texas, to wait before the 
Lord on the "Money Basis." And, notwithstanding the crimson 
cord of the Great Sacrifice and the Golden Cord of the Conven- 
tion's appointed Confessor now leading the meeting, and the 
Purple cord of Defendant B. H. Carroll's Ambition and the White 
Cord of Governor Northen's unsuspecting sincerity, to the eye 
acute enough to discern it, these four colors were X-rays to the 
rest. Yet this fourfold Cord was being as by a bodkin woven 
into the purses of brethren for the forthcoming Coal Oil Scheme. 
"Surely," said they, "These Sunday Morning Thoughts" (enough 
to sicken those who knew the "Monday Morning Transactions"), 
"these pious prayer, these Scriptural exhortations either came 
from heaven or are going there." 

The mob at Waco, resulting in the killing of several citizens, 
was led by some of the Defendants. No sooner had Dr. Burle- 
son been deposed than the worst of disorders began and con- 
tinued to increase until the bloodiest encounters occurred on 
the streets of Waco. Following these tragedies, "Rev." B. H. 
Carroll, Jr., then pastor at Weatherford, Texas, who had become 
a chaplain of a Texas regiment in the army stationed at San 
Antonio, wrote Judge Gerald, who had shot and killed one of 
the Harrises, a challenge, saying among other things that his 
duties in the army forbade his seeing Judge Gerald in person, 
but that Judge Gerald could consider his face spat in, or words 
to that effect. Judge Gerald wrote Defendant B. H. Carroll, Jr., 
(afterwards dismissed from the suit), that "if he ever came to 
Waco his challenge would be accepted, wherever he met him, etc." 
This scared young Carroll worse than the Spaniards. This 



CONSPIRACY TRIAL 351 

Trial Book cannot report the vile language of these two knights 
of honor. They surpassed all the documents the Plaintiff has 
ever seen. Parts of each communication were published in the 
secular papers, but the full text, of these letters was the coarsest 
language ever put on paper. The reader cannot exaggerate it. 
Defendant Carroll, Jr., resigned his chaplaincy before any action 
was taken. Defendant Carroll, Sr., is said to have spent one or 
two weeks in San Antonio extricating his preacher son from his 
delicate situation and the Junior is said to have remained wholly 
away from Waco for several years, which has not been dis- 
puted. Judge Gerald had killed several men and the Car- 
rolls, father and son, understood him to mean what he wrote. 
After the lapse of five years or more after his challenge had 
been barred by the statute of limitations, Defendant Carroll, Jr., 
returned to Waco. At least if he ever visited Waco after the 
interchange of challenges between himself and Judge Gerald, 
the community at large seems not to have heard of it, until 
comparatively lately. 

This same B. H. Carroll, Jr., has recently been convicted of 
conduct unbecoming a minister and a gentleman and has been 
forced by the faculty of Baylor University to retire from the 
chair which he occupied in his father's "Theological Seminary." 

Is it any wonder out of such a standard of morals and with 
such views of "spirit guidance" by the leaders, such a Conspir 
acy should arise as has shocked religious society in Texas and, 
indeed, throughout the country? As Defendant Carroll, Sr., 
has denied almost every statement of Dr. Burleson in connec- 
tion with this deposition, this sad history would not be com- 
plete without the Burleson letters in which the Carroll resent- 
ment reinforces the Carroll aspiration. 

The files of The Texas Baptist, and The Texas Baptist Her- 
ald, J. B. Link and R. C. Buckner, Editors, are marked and torn 
like Waterloo or Gettysburg by the missiles hurled by Defend- 
ant Carroll, who was suffering from that mania of "a sore need 
of a paper at Waco." 



352 THE COMPLETE 

That this spirit of violence was encouraged by Defendant 
Carroll will appear from the following shameful episodes: 

1. At the Convention at Houston, 1896, in the evening after 
his father's written recommendation to expel Plaintiff from the 
Convention, incorporated into the Report of the Board, had 
been defeated, "Rev." C. C. Carroll, son of Defendant B. H. Car- 
roll, pursued Plaintiff through various parts of the basement, 
fist clenched, breathing out threatenings with a pistol con- 
cealed on his person, as he afterwards boasted. Plaintiff ignored 
his banters and walked away from him at each approach. But 
Defendant C. C. Carroll (dismissed from the suit), persisted In his 
pursuit until Plaintiff called the attention of young Carroll's 
friend, Rev. W. C. Lattimore, now of Denton, who with some 
difficulty restrained him from his disorderly conduct in the 
house of God. This all occurred in the First Baptist Church 
basement in Houston, Monday night, October 12th, 1896. Deacon 
Fox of the Houston First Church, who heard of this shameful 
affair, recommended that it be reported to the Chief of Police 
and the next morning Rev. W. C. Lattimore informed the "Rev." 
C. C. Carroll of their purpose, when he promised, if not arrested, 
to keep the peace. 

At the San Antonio Convention in 1897, Defendant B. H. 
Carroll, Jr., repeatedly walked down the aisle of the Pavilion, 
up the steps by Plaintiff, with a hea/y walking stick in his hand, 
rushing by as if he were in a great hurry. This was repeated 
several times until one of the messengers, seeing it, called for 
a policeman, when Defendant Carroll desisted. 

At the Southern Baptist Convention at Wilmington, N. C, 
Dr. A. J. Holt took Plaintiff aside and sought to bind him under 
Masonic honor to reveal what he was about to disclose, which 
after much hesitation turned out to be that he, Holt, had learned 
from the parents of B. H. Carroll, Sr., that it was difficult to 
restrain the two sons, Revs. B. H. and C. C. Carroll, from killing 
S. A. Hayden. Reminding Dr. Holt that there could be no 
Masonic or other obligation to secrecy where human life was 
involved, he complained that his confidence was violated! Such 



conspiracy r B I A L 353 

was his view of human conduct and human life. Defendant B. 
H. Carroll had almost unlimited influence over Dr. Holt and 
while Witness Holt was friendly to the Plaintiff, he said he 
did not want to enstrange Defendant Carroll by appearing to 
be an informer against his "brother ministers." 

These disagreeable matters thrust themselves into the object 
of this book, to-wit, the correction of a serious laxness in the 
ethics of some ministers who allow themselves insphered in the 
conduct of those who have influence over them, out of which 
comes conspiracies and various moral delinquencies injurious to 
the cause of society and religion. Right always conquers in 
the end. 



Did you tackle the trouble that came your way 

With a resolute heart and cheerful? 
Or hide your face from the light of day 

"With a craven soul and fearful? 
Oh, a trouble's a ton, or a trouble's an ounce, 

Or a trouble is what you make it. 
And it isn't the fact that you're hurt that counts, 

But only how did you take it? 



And though you be done to the death, what then? 

If you battled the best you could, 
If you played your part in the world of men, 

Why, the Critic will call it good. 
Death comes with a crawl or comes with a pounce, 

And whether he's slow or spry, 
It isn't the fact that vou're dead that counts, 

But only how did you die? 



re 7 m 



•^22 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper pi 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxic 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnolo 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESER' 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 1606 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 648 859 1 



